Great Western Coffee Shop

About to do a spot of research.....

If you were to design a new-build unit for Portsmouth-Cardiff services, what features would it have, how many carriages, would it be based on a unit already in existence etc.

Similar to a 158 but four carriages and with a return of First Class to the Cardiff-Portsmouth line.

I think if you look at SWT's 159s they have got it just about right. Very nice trains.

More like 170s. Less dwell time in stations.

Doors which are not as painfully slow at opening and closing as the 158s. With Turbostars, the guard is in their cab and can just "slam" their cab door shut after the main doors have been locked/ just lead out of the window if on a platform that allows it/ station staff are helping.

A mix of table, and airline seats.

Comfortable seats that are aligned to the windows.

First Class (if any) at one end of train, not in middle like on XC 170s.

No cafe, a trolley (if any catering is needed).

No more than 1 disabled toilet.

A guards van area OR if these are no longer the norm, PLENTY of space for at least two bikes IN ADDITION to wheelchair spaces.

But this MUST NOT compromise on seats. If the health and safety/equal opportunities people are going to add more and more "required" features (which arguably is good), then the trains have to be longer.

Longer trains - SDO if necessary (never thought I would say that - but this is not an HST or a HSS).

Luggage overhead racks which are not as pathetic as the ones on the 158s!

Air conditioning, no openable windows (apart from cabs), tinted glass.

I agree with the 159s comment Timmer, 4 or even 5 carriage trains in a similar style to those would be good.

Some requirements of mine would be in addition to Btline's good ideas. They would able to couple onto 143/150/153/158 units should that be required. SDO is a must- if we are dealing with 4/5 cars I believe stations like Bradford-on-Avon and Warminster would have problems without it.

I would also like to add LED display boards in carriages would definitely be a good idea showing calling points and 'now arriving at' messages similar to Turbostars (and perhaps external displays next to doors too). No automated announcements or long jingles though, please!  ;D

I agree with the trolley idea, but there needs to be enough space for one to 'stay'. The problem with 158s sometimes is the trolleys often stay in the extreme front/rear door areas and get in the way.

A diesel 444.

Yer - with 4 carriages.

Let me add, for the basher qualities:

English Electric engine nicked from class 37s... a decent buffet... guards van.

A train I can work with ease... nah, not really. I have no interest in Desiro trains...

Slam door cab aswell.

Hang on! Why not a DEMU 442!!

Sounds good to me!

That way we get REP motors (;D ;D ;D) as well as English Electric engines!  8)

Throw in a 38ts compressor for the hell of it?

You're beginning to sound like Captain Deltic (Roger Ford).

Just to throw a pebble in the pond. What about a proper continental Desiro DMU i.e articualted. Throw in tilt as well just for fun.

Or a Stadler with central power pod. Three section articulated.

Corridor connections between units al la 442s so a mixture of 2 3 and 4 car units. But that would mean splitting which along with loco changes seems to be frowned upon.

What about 180s? ;D

all the 180s are now accounted for.

Suggest a already well known build would be the best idea to go for rather than a new design as that would require far more paperwork with network rail in clearing bodywork ...

TC sitting at Ground Zero... VPNd into home! :)

I've never been a huge fan of tilt- whenever I was on a SuperVoyager I tended to feel a bit dodgy after a while!

Just order a bulk of 185s then! They are perfect.

Disagree.

They're overweight piles of junk. The concept needs redesigning and the engines need to be more spread out.

But they offer improved acceleration, and less dwell than 158s.

Again. Disagree.

185s are unsuitable for the TPE route - a lot of commuters have this view. There is a lack of seating due to it being a 1/3 and 2/3 door alignment.

Portsmouth to Cardiff is majorly different mainly due to the fact that trains stop less than on TPE, are not used as much as TPE for commuter through traffic (feel free to dispute this, but it's a fact and is unavoidable). Carriage end doors as per the 158 and 444 fleets would be far more suitable for Cardiff Pompey.

Actually, passengers prefer the new 185s "particularly the ease of getting on and off." This is due to the doors.

Punctuality has improved - look at another thread on this forum - FTPE are right up near the top.

The reason why there are not enough seats is that the trains are only 3 cars! The gov would not fund (according to Wikipedia) an extra coach.

The fact that the trains stop more on Cardiff to "Pompey" (Portsmouth?)  points towards having the better acceleration.

They are also more reliable and eco friendly.

They have faults (like their weight etc.), but these could be fixed for mark 2.

The "ease of getting on and off" has reduced the number of seats. People like seats. Seats = good. I'll agree it improves the possibility of getting on and off quicker reducing dwell time, but I don't think people enjoy standing on 1hr+ journies!

Punctuality has improved for one reason. The timetable hasn't changed much, only a bit of tightening up, and hence there is more slack to play with.

The reason why the trains do not have enough seats are because the doors are too bloody big and occupy too much of the coach. There is still an option for an additional 185 coach.

Let's review a train on the TPE route, Scarborough to Manchester Airport against Cardiff to Portsmouth.

Scarborough - Seamer: 2 miles 72 chains
Seamer - Malton: 18 miles 2 chains
Malton - York (85~mph linespeed): 21 miles 12 chains
York - Leeds: 25 miles 46 chains
Leeds - Dewsbury: 9 miles 12 chains
Dewsbury - Huddersfield: 8 miles 2 chains
Huddersfield - Manchester Piccadilly (70 - 80mph linespeed): 25 miles 28 chains
Manchester Piccadilly - M. Airport (15 - 60mph linespeed): 9 miles 72 chains

You get the idea here where the TPE route is fairly high speed and has varying lengths between stations...

Cardiff Central - Newport S Wales: 11 miles 60 chains
Newport S Wales - Filton Abbey Wd: 23 miles 12 chains
Filton Abbey Wd - Bristol Temple Mds: 4 miles 28 chains
Bristol Temple Mds - Bath Spa: 11 miles 40 chains

I'm not going to continue but bear in mind the average linespeed between stops on the Cardiff Portsmouth route is lower - therefore the enhanced speed potential is sort of negated as 185s cannot take advantage of Sprinter linespeed differentials at present unless the infrastructure is upgraded. That's occured on all TPE lines and, well, you get the idea. The problem with introducing the heavy 185s is that you cannot really benefit without spending thousands on P.Way improvements (which could be better used in upgrading other lines, such as the Cotswolds).

185s are more reliable but are certainly not more eco friendly than 158s!! Only the EM mode that has been introduced more recently has improved it - and this only works by dropping out one engine where required... such are the problems of using the same engines as a Voyager!

I'm not sure that 1/3 and 2/3 doors are ideal, they reduce seating capacity and also luggage space. Sure, there are longer dwell times with end doors but the 158s with the slowest doors known to man seem to cope!

But what I am saying is that you could add an extra coach to make up for the loss of seats.

And make them lighter.

You can't just make something lighter... if you could we'd all have magic wands, have little broomsticks we fly around on...

Btline - you can't just make trains longer either! In this day of computers, adding an additional coach requires rebuilding the software!!

Btline. We live in a world of efficiency. They aren't going to fund an extra coach to get the same seats as having one less are they?

It would all be so much easier if we could fly around on English Electric powered broomsticks.

Umm, I'm not talking about modifying exiting stock, but designing new stock (as per the title) based on the 185. Therefore there would not be any need for software mods and it would be possible to design something to be lighter without using a magic wand.

e.g. The new 172s (as in my picture), are the same as the 168s,170s and 171s. However, they are to be lighter, with improved acceleration.
e.g. The Meridians are clones of the Voyagers - with improvements.

Therefore we do live in a world where this is possible!


A valid point, but any new build will loose seats anyway - wheelchair toilet/space (which I am all for, IF the train length is increased to compensate).

In addition, new stock should be planning ahead for growth so an extra coach is needed. On FTPE, they have made the capacity lower, when they should have made it larger. A 3 car 185 has less standard seats than a 158. A 4 car 185 would have the same number, lus "growing room."

And at the same time, delays are reduced.


That was the idea. Allow every train to arrive in stations say 30 secs earlier, cutting delays. in time, any slack which they think is too much can be tightened up, although this is unlikely.

And more FTPE people prefer the new 185 trains (surprising, considering that more commuters have to stand at peak times).

Perhaps, but I think even a Pacer would be more comfortable! :P

One thing, 172s and Meridians are vastly different from the trash Siemens bring out ...


The 3 car 185s did plan for growth ... just the growth levels were a bit, well, higher than what they were expecting. Also the huge toilets are a bit pointless, eats up half of a coach!

TCpedia asks... citation needed! And enthusiasts don't count for preferring 185 trains.

You can't tighten an already tight schedule, btw. TPE interface with a number of TOCs and once they lose their path it could delay trains across the entire Pennines...

But how can FTPE have proveded for growth if there are less seat? ???

I think FTPE did a survey.

BTW, if TPE do a survey, surely it's in their interest to say people prefer 185s? I'd rather see it done independently!!

Aaaaalso, passenger figures on the TPE network at the time of procurement for the 185s were dropping - but in the event of an increase a 4th car option was inserted into the contract. TPE lobbied the govt. to provide this fourth car, but as you've already said they refused on grounds of cost and that there wasn't enough overcrowding....  ::) ::) ::) ::)

The government is silly. The fact that they have no money in the kitty and the fact that so much money is raked in through (rising!) fuel taxes sadly means the government (at present) is going to be reluctant to invest money is something that they don't get money is such massive amounts back.

Yeah, ^1.1bn~ from each new franchise is clearly far too little to give to the government!!  :o ::)

4 car turbostars will do

I agree. Would be absolutely fine.

Yes, 4 cars would offset seat reductions.

You would want 172s.

I'd rather throw up at the opportunity of seeing 75mph Turbostars on the Cardiff Portsmouth route ... there is a high linespeed between Filton and Cardiff you know...

172s are 100 mph.

Depending on how they are geared, the LO varients will be 75mph.

172s will struggle to get to 100mph - they're designed to be highly geared to allow for high acceleration at the low end of the spectrum, optimum acceleration will probably be up to about 55mph... then a sloooooooooooooooooooooooooow increase to 100mph. I know where I'm coming from on this one so I wouldn't try argue it!

170s would be more suitable - shame the production line is currently full with 172s. Diesel 444 is still the best bet.

Turdostars don't even have corridor connections so get a no from me!

Diesel electrostars perhaps.

172 have better accererlation than 170s.

LM 172s have corridor connexions (not the type in my avatar- that's a LO/Chiltern 75 mph version).

Perfect! ;D

Still rather a 444 diesel - no un-needed body tilt profile.

I think tilt profile is a requirement now (obviously not for SWT as you can't tilt with third rail).

Why is it required  ???

I remember reading some stuff about clearance between tilting and non tilting stock to prevent scrapes.

Don't quote me on it by the way - it may not be true.....

The problem is that any underfloor DMU is going to be rubbish.

To get the higher acceleration and top speed you want you've got to cart around a larger/heavier/noiser lump of metal.

Electrification is the only answer then loco hauled Mark 3s or if you must have units 442?s. Although I liked the Clactons in original form. Rode well and accelerated and braked so well that GE timed them to do 60 mph start stop sprints over relatively short distances. You could stand in an intermediate cab watching the speedo you'd be doing 60 at the platform end. I've got a photo taken without flash on slow film of the speedo rock steady on 90.

Nono!!!

Tilt stock is built to tilt within the standard loading guage so as long as a train fits the standard loading guage it could thereoetically be any shape!!

Given where we are, even the provision of decent underfloor dmu's is likely to be a) a dramatic improvement and b) a fairly amazing turnaround. Anything else is just pie in the sky.   

Erm, right. What planet do you live on by the way? I hear Venus is quite good at this time of year.

Oh and one question, how the hell do you know that 172s will have a better acceleration to 100mph when you have NEVER BEEN ON ONE???

Loco haulage is not the solution for Portsmouth Cardiff, not to mention low turnaround times, loco release times to allow run-around, and the amazing reputation of being very slow at accelerating it's really a no-go zone.

Calm down SWLs!!! :o

*LM told me in an email that the 172s would have better acceleration (and I have seen somewhere on the interweb the same).

*I live on Earth- that's why I travel on Britains rail network (although the person who wrote what I read might be that figure from Mars).

*Loco hauled stock would only be temporary, until LM 150s/new build some.

Of course LM would say they accelerate faster ... it's called PR! I highly doubt the acceleration time to 100mph will differ much from a 170 in all honesty. And even then, I'd say Cardiff to Portsmouth would benefit way more with acceleration on par with a 185.

LM would not introduce stock onto the snow hill lines with worse performance! The Snow Hill lines are already congested. It would be mad - they would save the cash and refresh the 150s!!!

Of course 172s will accelerate faster than 150s - we're talking about speeds against 170s here...

How about build a batch of locos similar to 43's and borrow some of the few hundred mk2's hanging around?

Refurb them to a high standard. Job done.

Acceleration would be too slow to meet the paths - including the allowances for slack time.

As posted elsewhere something along these lines. NZ Mk II's refurbishment and diesel hauled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:38522796_59f6c38d59.jpg

How about Cl 67's re-geared for 90/100MPH should have adequate acceleration, with a DVT at 'tother end.

Shortage of DVTs - none are wired for through working with class 67s so there would have to be very expensive mods made (WSMR have done these).

This debate should actually be moved to the case for electrification.

To get the acceleration and top speed required is going to need around 15hp per ton just for traction plus a another 25hp say for A/C and other auxilaries.

That means something like the Voyager.

15hp per ton is a doddle with EMUs, but not with a "cheap" DMU which will require 550 HP engine per 35 ton (max weight) coach. Can the manufactures actually build  a 15HP per ton beast and meet the crumple zone and other crash requirements at 35 tons or less.

Guys, bear in mind that 170's are 100 mph units and as such are slower off the mark than 75mph units. It's all in the gearing.

If the 172's for the Snow Hill lines are modern inner suburban 75 mph units then I expect they will go like a rocket up to 45 mph whereas the longer legged 170's will catch up at higher speeds.

As a rule of thumb a good 150 will be doing 60 ish one minute from rest. I've not timed it but the drivers vigilence device goes off after a minute  and I'm ususally doing around 60 by the first time it goes off.

I've not driven a 170, but a friend who was at Central Trains reckoned they took an age to accelarate.

Thought struck me last night prompted by 8f^s posts regarding typical power requirements, and a possible solution that may also remove the generally disliked underfloor power on current multiple unit designs. Clearly we are also unlikely to see electrification on the route for a considerable number of years but would like to see acceleration rates comparable with electric traction.

There is already considerable interest in hybrid traction as the conversion of the 43 by Hitachi is demonstrating, there must be potential for this technology in this scenario.

Take as a starting point a basic Voyager and install the hybrid element in one end and distribute electric traction to every car. Internal layout will be a continued debate but I think the concept will be workable in the very near future. This solution is on the basis that a large part of 1 car would be dedicated to power generation and the batteries therefore through corridor connection would be redundant, making 5 car sets. If you can get the power density for the unit to be underslung then this would allow 4 car units and through corridors.

This thread of over a decade ago has popped up on one of my admin pages as being read again - and indeed it does make for interesting reading at the time that the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains are indeed in the process of growing from 3 to 5 carriages

On that subject................what has happened to all the "extra seats" (albeit 5 abreast) we were promised on this route ??  Turbos seem to be as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.
Just had a look at Warminster CIS - of 7 Cardiff/Portsmouth trains shown, 6 are identified as having 3 coaches and only 1 as having 5 coaches !

1530 ex Cardiff was 5 coaches on Tuesday.  talking to the guard/conductor, he wasn't very happy about the fact that it is not possible to walk through the whole train and check tickets.  Needless to say that, being a turbo, there were no seat reservations or carriage letters

Was never going to be an ideal solution having two separate trains with no walk through. If only there had been some spare 158’s to strengthen the existing GWR fleet operating the route but alas there isn’t.

Remember there are - what - 4 units still in the east which should have come across at the New Year when Newbury went electric - those on the Bedwyns which, however, haven't gone 80x because of the need for camera mods for DOO operation.    I do wonder, mind you, if 3 more 80x units were already in use on those services how many other services would be 5 carriages instead of 10.

Certainly does make you wonder  ::)

Part of me wonders whether it wouldn't be possible to convert some of the 5-car Hitachis to diesel/third rail and use them on the Portsmouth service. They'd be less bad there than on the Main Line.

I thought all of GWR's Hitachis would run on diesel. Is range an issue?

Not suitable - have only 4 abreast seating and adequate leg room !

The most suitable modern cost effective train for Portsmouth to Cardiff, in my opinion is the Voyager class 220.
Then HSTs for the cross country Poole/Bournemouth to Manchester services.
But in the real world..

Not that it’s likely to happen, but would there be enough seats on a 4-car Voyager?

5 car IETs should do.
Build some more 10 car (not 5+5) IETs, mechanically similar to and interchangeable with the present fleet but with a proper inter-city internal fit out.
Use these new inter-city IETs on the longer distance and more important GWR services, and transfer some of the existing 5 car units to Cardiff-Portsmouth.

My well known objections to IETs are not primarily on engineering or technical grounds, but are due to the downgraded passenger experience on routes previously operated by proper inter-city trains.

I have little objection to additional full length IETs being built with proper inter-city internal arrangements, and cascading the shorter and lower specification units to secondary routes.
New IETs should be more affordable than the first lot.
Maintenance should be simplified if the new units are mechanically like the existing fleet, differing only in internal fittings, equipment and layout.
One type of train from the driving P.O.V. simplifying training and rostering.
Already approved by the various regulatory agencies, unlike a new design.

On stuff that's around - and a paper exercise - 172/2 and 172/3 units. Modern, 5 car, 2+2 seating, through gangway, 100 m.p.h., Centre carriage doors for faster intermediate loading / unloading.  In fact pretty much the stuff that was about to be ordered (or had been and was cancelled) when electrification of the inner services from Paddington was announced and the turbos became available.

Yet elsewhere on the GWR network, two separate trains with no walk through have been recently introduced and touted as a great step forward.

And how will they be cheaper?
What you gonna say to Bristol/Cheltenham/Cotswolds people who need shorter trains to provide service change?
Who is going to pay for the “intercity internal arrangements” and will it provide seating capacity improvements?

Any additional build of IETs should be cheaper per vehicle than the already existing units because the development and approval costs have already been paid, unlike another new design.
Should also be relatively quick to produce with no or minimal new development needed.

The costs of building some more units with "proper inter-city" internal fit out would be met partly by the tax payer and partly by the fare payer, as with any new rolling stock.
A 10 car train should cost no more than a 5+5, since it contains the same number of vehicles, bogies, and other components.
Depending on the exact layout, it could carry about 80 more passengers, and have more luggage space, or could even have a proper buffet and still seat about 40 to 50 more passengers than an existing 5+5 car train.
The cost per seat should be LESS than that for a pair of existing 5 car IETS.