Great Western Coffee Shop

How many class 158s currently work this route?

Hello ... and welcome to the forum.

"Very few" is about the best answer I can give you, with Turbos (class 165 and 166) pretty much standard these days.  A case of "love 'em or hate 'em" as the turbos are pretty good for services that have lots of people getting on and off in large numbers at frequent stops along the way, but less good with their seating 2+3 and no corridor between units for people travelling longer distances

158s turn up from time to time on connected / linked routes - Westbury to Swindon (Gloucester linked services), for example though during lockdown data is sparse as many of us ain't travelling ...

Edit to add ... others know more than I do:

There is a pair each day

165/166s are back to running as 3 car only. No need for five car combination at present.

Technical forum note - I was getting confused between two threads here with the same title ("Rolling Stock"), so I have taken the liberty of renaming them (both!). When doing so, I took the opportunity to add in a bit more detail so that when they come up in new or recent post compendia we know what line's being talked about more easily.  Thread and post content not modified.

Just a passing thought but I wonder if the Cardiff - Portsmouth services would be better with new bi-mode (ie. hybrid) rolling stock. Don't get me wrong: I like the 165s & 166s but I wonder if long-distance work is a good use of them. Also if the Filton four-track was electrified then taking might taking advantage thereof be a good idea?

Dave

I don't wonder - I am adamant that long-distance regional express work is NOT a good use for the 165s and 166s (or anything else with 'double-width' doors).

There are well over 300 DMUs in Great Britain with single-width doors, many of which will need replacing in the next 5-10 years. I think now is the time to be looking at a desigining a worthy sucessor to these fleets and, unless we decide not to decarbonise our railways, these will need to be capable of electric operation*. The basic bodyshell design would be the same, but (for example) ScotRail are aiming to eliminate diesel by 2035 and thus the self-power mode on the Scottish units would be battery or hydrogen whereas the GWR units might still need diesel.

* by this I mean passive provision, as a minimum, for installation of a pantograph, transformer etc. - on some units it may be considered better to leave the pantograph off initially due to running on routes with little or no electrification to start with, while others will want to have third rail shoes fitted from the outside. I would also build a number of electric-only versions of the same thing to suplement the class 444s and allow SWR to use appropriate stock on Portsmouth fasts rather than more wide-door stock.

I'll totally agree that 165/6s are not suitable for regional express work - they are awful !!  BUT............ the only thing I do like about them is the double-width doors. There are parts of Portsmouth-Cardiff route which are not "regional express like" - Warminster to Bath for example, where you have stops every few minutes, the single width doors cannot cope with the traffic in the time allowed for the stop. Try getting on or off a 158 at Bath Spa at 5 pm !! Double (decent)-width doors at the end of the coaches would speed things up considerably, stepping up/down from the train is the slowest part, not moving down the aisle to get to the door.   

A new purpose built family of trains would indeed be the ideal solution. Perhaps some passenger centered thought could be applied to this.............a regional express does not require much 100mph + running so the new trains could be flat fronted, then it would be a simple job to have full corridor trains from 2 to 10 coaches long - just take a look at RTT for Salisbury and see how well SWR do this with their 158/9 fleet .  What a (bad) joke a 165 and a 166 coupled together is, but I suppose it goes with the 5 + 5 IETs  !

Something that perhaps requires more serious thought - is third rail really that dangerous ?? Has anyone looked at "engineering" it safer ? Portsmouth-Cardiff could never justify OHLE, but perhaps third rail. Worting Jct to Exeter is another prime candidate. There must be a huge amount of third rail in the UK if you just count track miles. What is the "casualty" rate per mile on 3rd rail compared to Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) ?

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

While I sympathise or agree with much in Clan Line's post, I am not sure about this.

My guess is that in most West European countries (Ireland excepted) routes of this standing have been electrified for years with Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE). If there is a place for bi-modes it is surely 3rd rail/Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) bi-mode.

Imagine how much easier it would be to cope with problems like the current problem with Hitachi A trains if all main line trains ran off Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) outside the current third rail network.

Is Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) much more expensive than third rail? I can understand third rail as a gap filler for the North Downs route or possibly the Hythe/Fawley Waterside route, but wouldn't it be better to have Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) from Basingstoke to Exeter operated by bi-modes that could divert to Paddington via Reading if a relevant problem arose?

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

It is not just the safety issue though is it.

The reduced voltage means there are greater energy losses and there needs to be many more substations which all adds to the cost of installation and renewals. 

Add in the cost of rectifiers and the fact that the equipment is non standard and the costs increase. 

Is there also an inherent speed limit on 3rd rail?

I suspect in the short term adding on bits of 3rd rail might stack up but I thought we were supposed to be looking to the long term. 

I really find it very difficult to believe that the cost of third rail would be any more that the huge sums spent on the GW main line. Many of the negative points ascribed to third rail are really not much more that self-fulfilling prophecies. "non standard", "costs increase"........ yes absolutely - mainly because the technology is sidelined and considered to be out dated............when perhaps it shouldn't be. Limited use of what is considered to be outdated technology will push the costs up.
We are talking about "regional express" working here; 5/6 car trains, 2500hp  90 mph max; not 10 cars, 7000+hp at 125 + mph (Class 374 16 cars, 21000 hp !!!). This is not much more than steam powered performance - perhaps old fashioned 3rd rail is worth looking at again.

(As a matter of interest, I used to work for a rectifier manufacturer until shiny plastic/aluminium killed off chrome plating and nobody wanted rectifiers any more - perhaps more 3rd rail could re-invent this business ?)

The UK doing more DC electrification would still not make it standard as the rest of the world sees the future in AC. 

There may be some logic in minor infill 3rd rail - to a logical conclusion of a complete(ish) network.  For consideration:
* Oxted to Uckfield
* Reigate to Guildford
* Wokingham to Ash
* Ore to Ashford
* Totton to Fawley
* Basingstoke, Eastleigh and Redbridge to Salisbury

I understand that one may be underway:
* Kennington to Battersea

Kennington to Battersea?

Which line is that on then? :-)

Northern tube line?

Technically that's not 3rd Rail then - its 3rd & 4th! Its still DC though.

Sorry, but to me that sort of thing is typical of a 'Regional Express' - it's not just 'Express'. The train serves minor intermediate stations because it has to, because it's the only service on the route, and runs fast where it can. Something like Pwllheli - Birmingham International is perhaps a better example though, since Bradford-On-Avon and Trowbridge probably don't really count as minor intermediate stations. Also your example station, Bath, is served by Intercity stock with narrow doors - are you suggesting that class 800s should have some toilets and seats removed to make the doors wider?

I'll agree with you that the doors on a 158 aren't ideal though, the mechanisum is really slow and I think they are a little narrower than modern standards. The template I would use, were it not for their lack of unit end gangways, would be a class 175. If you took a 175, added unit end gangways, softened the seats a little and somehow made it as lightweight and cheap to run as a 158 that would be the perfect regional express train in my view (possibly with one door per coach offset from the end, like one coach on a 444 has). I think the doors on a 175 are a little wider than on a 158, while not grabbing vast amounts of extra space.

The SWR 158/159 operation is another good template; unit end gangways are absolutely a must for all sub-111mph multiple units if you ask me (unless the units are so long you'll never want to run them in multiple, the 12-car class 700s being about the only thing that fits into that category).

Network Rail would appear to disagree with you there. Their Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS - the first report from which can be found here - see the map on page 79 (https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf)) recommends 3rd rail electrification as the optimal solution for the following routes:

• All existing 3rd rail routes, except perhaps Basingstoke - Southampton
• The current gaps on the North Downs Line
• The Isle of Grain Branch / Thamesport
• Ashford to Hastings
• The Uckfield branch

For 25kv AC electrification there are two categories, 'Core Electrification' and 'Ancillary Electrification'. The following (and a lot more besides) is all classed as 'Core Electrification':

• Routes into Bristol Temple Meads, including from Bath, Cardiff and Exeter
• Bath - Salisbury - Southampton
• The TransWilts through Melksham
• Basingstoke to Salisbury
• Eastleigh - Romsey

'Ancillary Electrification' includes Salisbury to Exeter, Worcester to Hereford and Exeter to Penzance.

Well, actually those 3rd-rail infill lines are identified as "multiple" - no single solution has been decided. The words about that say:

Can you have 25KV overhead AND 750 VDC third rail? imagine it is OK, as long as both running rails are the earth, so you have to use axle counters, ie, no track ciruits for train detection. As track circuits are either AC or DC, so could be un trustable with both AC and DC traction current flying around!

It's very troublesome, and only ever done at handover points where the special extra measures needed can be justified. For 25 kV, the track must be well earthed for safety. For DC the track must be moderately well insulated to stop large return currents flowing through the ground - DC rots steel in pipes, foundations etc. 

Thanks for that answer, Stuving ... I was going to follow up with a far less technical answer pointing out that it's done in the middle of London on Thameslink to must at least be possible.

I recall overhead equipment in the yards at Hither Green in the past, with 3rd rail and pantograph on locomotives, but I suspect that the overhead was 660 or 750v DC.    And when Eurostar ran into Waterloo before the opening of HS1, there must have been a dual system switchover somewhere.

Yes metal utility pipes (water gas and sometimes sewers) near to DC sources can have radically shorter lives. I would not lay a metal pipe anywhere near a DC line if I could avoid it.  If had to I would insist on special protective measures. 

The Thameslink “overlap” between City Thameslink and Farringdon AIUI has additional switching, and the earthed or insulating mode for the rails (as stuving referred to earlier) is switchable depending on whether the trains are using AC or DC at the time.   The normal condition is to change from AC to DC at Farringdon southbound, with the opposite change happening at City Thameslink northbound. 

So the normal overlap condition is that there’s a DC line running alongside an AC line, rather than two dual voltage lines.

Paul

Cardiff to Portsmouth (Salisbury this week) continues to be shockingly under-resourced .   From Cardiff this morning

07:28 scheduled as 3 carriages, running with 2
08:27 scheduled as 5 carriages, running with 4
09:27 scheduled as 5 carriages, running with 3
10:30 scheduled as 5 carriages, running with 3
11:30 scheduled as 4 carriages, running with 2

The 12:30 is the same train as the 07:28 ... supposed to be 3, but only 2 provided, and so on.

So that's 14 carriages running out of 22 scheduled - 64% of specification according to JourneyCheck.   It's only 56% if you believe the marketing hype (and the FOI that suggests the DfT have read the marketing hype) that "all GWR trains on this route are now 5 carriages".

Not a new problem - and an indication that the sums need to be re-worked for services into Salisbury from the north from next month, where seven trains per day are being culled. This is based on capacity which GWR provide in theory but have never (to my knowledge) provided in practice since it became the supposed "norm" two years ago.

Only this morning I was told of an someone who has pulled out of regular visits to Salisbury Hospital for specialist physiotherapy because she thinks the trains (and buses) are now so crowded to be unsafe - Covid wise. 
Personally, I have noticed myself that 5 car GWR trains certainly seem to be in the minority at Warminster.

Looks like the moment to play the "it's all down to the delay in delivering "new"(!) 769 trains in the Thames Valley releasing diesel trains for use in the west" card.

What is ironic is that up here in the Thames Valley many Electrostar services that started off as 8 car trains are now running as 12 car trains with the last 4 uselessly parked beyond the end of the platforms when they call at Tilehurst to Cholsey inclusive, and the remaining 8 cars often thinly occupied. No chance of course of any instant OHL electrification of the Trans Wilts routes to solve that anomaly.......   

I'm sure that Electrostars could run the Paddington to Cardiff service, releasing a five car IET to run Swindon to Westbury, which is cleared for IETs  ;D and giving at least an extra 2 cars to bolster Cardiff - Portsmouth.  Could even run a 5+5 Paddington to Swindon and split for Cheltenham Spa and Westbury - selling that as restoring a through service from London to Trowbridge ...

I was visiting someone this lunchtime and noticed a distinct lack of trains leaving Warminster. Had a quick look at the GWR website.

1108 from Portsmouth Harbour "Terminated at Portsmouth & Southsea".   
1208 from Portsmouth Harbour "2 coaches instead of 3 - full and standing from Fratton". (What's happened to our 5 coach trains - again !)

Usual high quality service............................

From this morning


I did not click through all 26 of these shortforms, but they are all trains 1 or 2 carriages down from the planned length (typically but not totally 5 carriages) using rolling stock that is or could be based on the pool at St Philip's Marsh, Bristol.

I had a seamless journey to PMH yesterday so clearly I chose my trains well. 10.22 FRO/11.05 WSB as a FIVE car 16x. The 18.23 PMH return which was a 2 car 158. This was adequate for the task (even for the first part of the trip) and much more comfortable than the 16x. Trolley service also available on the outward trip which was completely unexpected.

Yes, it undoubtedly was for that service................I doubt somehow that it could have been described as that for the trip to PMH.     SAL - 1633: SOU - 1703: FRM - 1727.
I totally agree with your comment about the comfort !!

"The new IETs will provide greatly increased capacity, not only on the routes served by the new trains, but also by freeing up existing stock for use on other routes"

Jam tomorrow.

Today, I travelled by train for the first time since Covid - WMN to SAL and return. By chance, I sampled both the "old" and the "new" within a couple of hours. I have to say that absolutely nothing seems to have been to done to try and improve the "experience" for the passenger since I last travelled 2 years ago.

First leg was in a 4 car (2 X 165) train. This is best described as shabby in the extreme, the seats were ingrained with dirt and many of the cushion corners were actually worn through, the vinyl flooring was covered in dirty ingrained muddy footprints. It all made the notice on Warminster station about all the extra cleaning being carried out to be......shall we say...optimistic ! I sat in a 2 + 2 section of the train, but of course the seats were the standard, uncomfortable, 165/6 narrow ones.
The return was also in a 4 car (2 X 158). It was refurbished internally, comfortable 2 + 2 seating throughout and sparkling clean. It may have been where I was sitting but it was noticeably quieter inside than the 165. However, the outside was pretty grubby, with the fog outside as well, I couldn't see a great deal. I have long wondered if GWR actually have a carriage wash, perhaps SWR could earn some money by offering to wash their rolling stock as it passes through Salisbury ?.

Again, it prompts me to ask (myself, as no one in GWR seems to listen............ or care) just who thought that 165/166s were an anywhere near suitable replacement for the 158s. The 158s had one problem - they weren't long enough. The 165/6s are worn out and filthy dirty, have (in the main) 2 + 3 seating and do not offer a through corridor. They are grossly unsuitable for a cross country service of 3.5 to 4 hrs duration. They were designed for commuter work with runs of an hour or so. GWR's "excuse" about offering "more seats" sounds as unconvincing as someone saying "it wasn't a party".

If any non-railway person had travelled with me to today, they would have thought I was barking mad if I were then to have told them which of today's trains was actually being replaced by which !!

I have serious doubts about my future rail travels, my 3 year Railcard runs out in May (2 wasted years on that - no refund !!), shall I renew it........................?

PS: I have just ordered a new Fiesta ......................

The Turbo fleet is currently in the process of being refurbished with almost 'as new' interiors and they look very nice internally, though no alterations to the seating layout have been made for reasons previously discussed.  The 2-car 165s are being done first, 118, 122, 123 and 126 have been completed.  119 is currently at Wolverton.

The extra cleaning is focussed on 'touch point' cleaning - i.e. grab handles, door buttons and so on which passengers touch and where there is a small chance the virus might be lurking.  It's quite hard to keep flooring clean this time of year, especially if anti-ice treatments have been applied to platforms as they would have been over the last few nights.

Asked to check likely conditions for a fragile traveller, looking at Salisbury today, 5 out of 14 services before 6:30pm  between Portsmouth and Cardiff are shown as 2 carriages, 3 are 5 carriages and the remainder, 3 carriages. One of the two carriage services originated at Brighton. One of the three carriage service intended to start from Brighton but ran to and from Southampton. A twitternaut has posted a photo of a very full service.

https://twitter.com/ClaireWrightInd/status/1517532703008165890

Is the intention, on these services, to now provide three carriages or five? The fragile traveller may have the choice of travelling via Southampton or via Dorchester (they're travelling Bath to Poole and back) but not sure if that option may be better or not - and the online planner has suggested a change at 'Upwey'...

Mark

Upwey requires changing platforms over a footbridge. If time allows better to go to Weymouth.
GWR planner gives Weymouth or Dorchester West, depending on the service, though Dorchester West to South is a 15 minute walk

What about ticket validity via Weymouth though.  An easement allow doubling back if you're travelling from Branksome or east thereof to Maiden Newton or north thereof, but does not appear to include Poole (the original question) nor intermediate stations between there and Dorchester

It has been confirmed that the removal of the Brighton GWR services will mean a unit that’s freed up will be used to strengthen one of the existing PMH<>CDF diagrams from the timetable change.

This, reported in the Salisbury Journal as "making this change means GWR can strengthen the busy, hourly Cardiff to Portsmouth *service* to five carriages."

Also, the phrase we've seen before: "to avoid duplication of services" and finally "The operator says very few people make the full journey from the Gloucester area where the services start" - which itself begs a couple of questions.

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/20133673.great-western-railway-launches-railway-summer-timetable/

Good photos from Twitter record the last day headboards, which give the start date for the service as long ago as nineteen thirty. I'm trying to recall where they ran - Brighton to Penzance? Brighton to Cardiff?

https://twitter.com/becciroake/status/1525021597425446917

Having imagined that given the train service along the south coast, quality connections would be available in place of the through trains, checking the timetables, while the alternative to the morning train is... ok... the replacements for the 17:00 from Brighton are all over the place, with the choice between a 16:30 involving a 50 minute wait at Southampton (can't think what that reminds me of)  or an 18:00, quick change at Fratton but still 25 minutes slower to e.g. Bath Spa.

Mark

AIUI the available “unit per day” no longer heading off to Brighton does very little except replace the unit written off in the Salisbury accident.  Just the usual spin?

I had a 30 minute connection at Southampton this morning and believe me that was more than the time I wanted to spend there. Awful station.

I can think of worse (Newport and Severn Tunnel Junction both stick in the mind) - perhaps we should have a poll.