Great Western Coffee Shop

From a 'tail end' discussion on the end of Matthew Golton's electrification and IEP presentation on Saturday.

Currently 30 vehicles on their way in - 12 have arrived and another 18 late summer - to replace other units which are being returned whence they came.  This provided a small increase in seating as they as the per-vehicle seats are more on the incoming that the outgoing.

"The DfT recognises the need for more"

26 vehicles not yet allocated, and 3 TOCs are bidding for (some?) of them.   They will primarily be deployed to meet the DfT's overcrowding constraints, some of which are in the wider Bristol area.  To "best cases" yet to be determined. 

FGW are one of the three bidders - looking at flows into Bristol from Weston, from the North and also some relief from Westbury / Trowbridge into Bath and Bristol.  Question was asked concerning Freshford; answered as a single station question the answer was not encouraging, but looking at the wider picture (and going beyond what Matthew said), switching the Westbury / Trowbridge to Chippenham / Swindon flow onto a direct service would provide significant relief to the Westbury to Bath section.

I'm seeing Matthew again tomorrow afternoon - is there anything we want clarified?

The unallocated ones include the 2 original 150/0s and the 2x3 car sets which have been formed in to three car sets after vehicle write-offs.  If the latter 2 are reformed in to 2 car sets then one won't have a toilet vehicle.

It's FGW, London Midland and Northern who are the companies bidding for the 150s.

The latest DfT decision involves Northern getting 24x150 vehicles to replace the 180s and 16x150 vehicles to replace 8x156 EMT bound vehicles and a few extra for growth.

Northern now also have to submit proposals to DfT for where they would utilise the 142s with FGW, after the 150 cascade and if DfT aren't happy with those proposals they could in theory stay with FGW, go to another operator or be put in to storage, despite the recent repaints which apparently are in preparation for them returning to Northern.

From memory 57209 & 57212 are the orphaned 150/2 vehicles following the scrapping of the respective 52xxx vehicles. In theory one of them could have a toilet installed and renumbered to a 52xxx although this means cutting into the roof sheet (which is structural) to create the access for the roof mounted tank.

The two 150/0's while mechanically simalar to 150/1 differ in a number of respects as regards spare parts provision, driver knowledge and inter-vehicle coupling arrangements and could cause a few issues unless operated out of a single depot in the way the 142's always operate out of Exeter.

talking to  manager the other day I was told that the majority of the 150/1's will be based at Exeter, if correct then they will be in good hands! Also confirmed that 3x153's may be on their way from LM possibly on sub lease but eventually permanent.

Am i confusing myself here... ??? why would London Midland be bidding for 150s when they're getting rid of theirs when the 172s are complete? sorry if that's a silly question...

I believe the plan to allocate the 15 x 150/1 to 83C has been shelved unfortunately.

It isn't a silly question at all, because the new fleets for LM were only ever intended to be like for like replacements - there are economies of scale in allocating all of a new fleet to one operator, and splitting the cascade of older ex BR stock around the country, hopefully to operators who are already familiar with the unit type in their incoming share of the cascade.

As the Dft rolling stock plan read, LM's 172s basically replaced a very similar number of 150s, (on a near one for one basis) and all the released 150s would go to other TOCs (always understoood to be FGW and Northern).  If nothing changed in the meantime, there'd be no 150s 'spare' for LM to be considering.  AIUI the catch in the plan was that although Northern were initially allocated a large proportion of the 150s, this remained subject to the DfT agreeing business case - in hindsight the DfT plan had a get out. So now there are a number of unallocated units - and they could go anywhere - even though they are currently in LM's hands.

Likewise, the small print of the recent announcement mentions that the 7 142s that FGW have 'on loan' from Northern won't necessarily go back into service - as DfT need to see yet another business case to supoport their reintroduction.

There is an EMU analogy on LM as well. The DfT rolling stock plan had them getting 37 Desiro 350/2s to replace their 37 older 321s on a one for one basis.  The theory was that the older fleet would be split 3 ways between FCC (10), NXEA (17), and c2c (10).  As things turned out the 10 for c2c didn't happen, and eventually 7 units were retained by LM.  In a recent DfT announcement these were considered 'additional stock' for LM - even though they had never physically left...   ::)

Paul  

Don't forget a couple of years back there was also supposed to be a new DMU order (likely 172s) which would have been split between Northern, FGW and TPE*, which was supposed to supply the extra stock.  While cascaded Sprinters were supposed to replace the smaller and less versatile Pacers.

The 12x142s that went down to FGW were supposed to have been withdrawn when FGW no longer required them.  However, DfT deciding to make TPE run Manchester to Scotland without extra stock to allow Virgin to increase frequencies in addition to increased passenger numbers meant Northern had to run extra services and that meant they had to take 5x142s back and sublease 3x180s.

* = Although I imagine if they were 172s some of them would have gone to LM instead of TPE and LM's 170s would have gone to TPE.

 Northern now have a arriva trains wales class 150,  150285 on loan.

Also ATW seem to have managed to find a class 175 unit to work the 2nd WAG express service rom may til december when it will then go over to class 67, mk3 & dvt operation.  not sure what the fture holds for the 1st wag express though as funding is only til december 2011

wont be long before Northern knacker that unit like everything else they touch!

Funding is now in place until the end of the current Wales franchise in 2018. WAG has paid ^3.5m up front and up to 10 Mk3s, DTs and Class 67s are being leased as a result to work the two express services. There will be additional money each year as an operating subsidy.

Is this cover for lack of 158 stock? (or even 175)

Reason for the question will the decision to cancel the 172/4 order for Pompey/Cardiff being the need to shuffle everything else.?

If the wag can come up with the money for this  then maybe they could look to see if they can at least raise part of the ^100 million need to extend the wires to swansea, i know the WAG is looking at using some of the money they receive from the EU to help pay for it.

if they can get enough to do this then if the wire's do run to cheltenham  ATW could free up at least 6 DMU's which could be replaced by new EMU's on a Swansea - Cardiff Central - Cheltenham spa service.

 

Or the WAG could cancel the ^600 million widening of the heads of the valley road

FGW  operate the Cardiff - Portsmouth Hbr service, but from may when FGW receive the class 150's from london midland then the 2 class 150's which are hired from ATW will be returned.

 This will  allow ATW to displace the 2 class 158's which are currently used on the Maesteg - Cheltenham service to allow a hourly Aberystwyth - Shrewsbury peak hour service.

however a few people including myself have been wondering where ATW have managed to find this class spare class 175 to work the 2nd WAG service which starts from Swansea at 17:10 (I believe when the service does go over to loco haulage that it would be the 1st regular loco hauled service out of swansea for a good number of years.)

I know FGW are  at sorting out the clearance iussue at trowbridge which if sorted , the plan was to use a number of the 3 carriage class 165/166 units on the cardiff - portsmouth Hbr service to allow some of the class 158's to be sent to work the Exeter - Penzance service's

Why are you wondering where the 'spare' 175 is coming from? The refurbishment programme for them is due for completion in May, so they will all be available for traffic again, rather than ATW having to allow for sets being out of action for overhaul.

As for Turbos, what are you on about? I can't imagine for a moment anyone is worrying about clearances at Trowbridge or anywhere else just now, as every 165 and 166 FGW has is going to be fully committed for the next five years or so in the Thames Valley and Cotswolds until electrification happens. There are none to spare for anywhere else, indeed FGW needs more stock in this area to cope with commuter traffic, not less.

And unless and until CrossCountry electrification between Bristol and Birmingham is authorised, wires won't be going anywhere near Gloucester or Cheltenham.

There never was a 172/4 order.  Even the sub class number is pure speculation. 

It is only an assumption (albeit fairly reasonable) that the famous 202 car DMU order would have consisted of a run-on of 172s - the electrifcation decision knocked the DMU order on the head before the tender process really got going.

The ITT went out Dec 2008, it had all been cancelled by Jul 2009 when the electrifcation paper was published.

Paul

First, the 150s from LM won't be arriving in May. Late summer is the current estimate. They have to train all their drivers on 172s before they can ne brought into service.

I've not heard from FGW about them clearing Trowbridge for turbos. Probably because they don't have any spares for that route. I think you're mistaken or dreaming.

I understand Dundas Aqueduct (up line) is the sticking point as far as clearing 165/166 for Bathampton Jn - Bradford Jn is concerned. All non 15x trains are restricted to 30mph at this loaction and there is a mark in the brickwork in the arch where it has been struck by a freight train at some previous point in time.

I suspect the only way to obtain the neccessary clearance is going to be to lower the track through the arch (and presumably about 200 yards each side).

I think the jury's still out on whether the cancellation decision was a wise move. Certainly whether electrification will eventually release sufficient stock to cover for projected growth figures, and with petrol prices only going one way for the forseable future making those figures doubtful.

By the time DfT realise that, it will be prohibitively expensive to restart a domestic production line.

I think the point I was trying to make was that DfT are now left with a deckchair shuffling exercise.

I meant FGW did look at using some of the class 165/166, once they had been replaced in the thames valley by electrification. (This was posted on another forum and it was a bit about in in a article in one of the railway magazines back in 2009/2010)  Also i when i meant FGW were supposed to be having the London midland class 150's i should have said anytime time from may 2011.

finally as for the wires to cheltenham i meant maybe the WAG should put some money toward the scheme   if they do pay for the wires to Swansea to allow a Swansea  to Cheltenham service using EMU's thus freein up some DMU's to provide extra capacity elsewhere

WAG may put money into wires to Swansea (indeed, the DfT want them too), but not in the Cheltenham direction. They'll stop before the border....and with no wires twixt Parkway & the outskirts of Brum, no chance.

It is a bit more concrete than just in rail forums and magazines, but AFAICS isn't strictly an FGW proposal.  It is an option proposed by, and published by, Network Rail in the appropriate route business plans, and has been for about 3 or 4 years now, and as you'd expect it requires gauge clearance as a pre-requisite.  Whether it is agreed by FGW is not stated... 

Paul

....and when it comes to fruition it might not even be FGW that are the operator!

FGW decision to extend (or not) the franchise, assuming they qualify will be known by the end of the year....

Look, wiring to Oxford and Newbury is five years away and many things can change in that time. In 2005, the Strategic Rail Authority said it couldn't see a case to redouble the Cotswold Line, yet six years later trains will soon be running on a redoubled Cotswold Line. This time last year, everyone thought they knew where all the LM Class 150s were going, but now some may stay at LM while FGW may get more sets than it first expected, and Northern fewer than it hoped to receive, so anything could happen to the Turbo fleet by 2016 and speculating about it now is pretty pointless.

And as a way of dealing with overcrowded trains between Cardiff and Hampshire, quite how three-car Turbos would be any improvement on three-car 158s beats me. The 'additional' seating in Turbos is because of 3+2 suburban seats, which would be no more suited to that route than they are to services from London to Worcestershire and Hereford. What is needed are four or five-car trains, properly configured for medium-distance journeys, and Turbos just don't fit the bill.

No XC wiring means no wiring of anything else in Gloucestershire but if Bristol-Birmingham were to happen, then you might well look at doing Swindon-Gloucester and Gloucester-Newport, both to benefit the regular services, allow freight services to the Midlands to switch to electric traction and and provide an electrified diversion avoiding the Severn Tunnel but in isolation, neither makes any sense, rather like just wiring Cardiff-Swansea for express services, while pretty much everything else on the line remains diesel.

I thought that had been cancelled following the electrification announcement and the plan is to replace 165s with 319s and then use the 165s on Pompey/Cardiff.

From what's been reported on railforums.co.uk ATW will be using a W&S loco hauled set which only requires a repaint and more staff being trained on loco hauled sets before it is put in to service.

The W&S set is leased to DB who now own Arriva.

As pointed out already...

Paul

No decision on the 165/166s. Will be fown to the micro-managing DfT to allocate.

Some subsequent posts on this topic started to discuss the wider implications of the possibility that FGW may choose not take up the option to renew their franchise - so I've merged them with another topic on that wider debate, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8577.0

Chris.  :)

Seems you have the same ideas as me, I want to see WAG cancel the heads of the valleys road dualing to pay for:

• Electrification of Maesteg branch
• Electrification of Ebbw Vale branch
• Electrification of Severn Tunnel Junction - Gloucester/Cheltenham Spa
• Purchase of a fleet of 3-car class 377 units for the following all-stations ValleyLines services:

• Hourly Maesteg - Ebbw Vale
• Hourly Ebbw Vale - Newport
• Hourly Swansea - Cheltenham Spa (Swanline)

[/list]
The purchase of the units for the Swanline service will hopefully pursuade DfT to cough up for wiring Swansea - Cardiff, if not there'll be enough of the Heads Of The Valleys Road money left to wire it anyway. The cost of all this? ^526,690,000, including the cost of Severn Tunnel Junction to Cardiff which London have said they'll fund anyway. Yes, you can have all this instead of the Heads Of The Valleys Road dualing and still make ^73,310,000 of spending cuts!

Hopefully the WAG funding to Gloucester will also get DfT to wire Swindon - Cheltenham, completing the Severn Tunnel diversionary route and meaning you only need bi-mode IEP for Worcester/Hereford/Great Malvern services. IEP, with 26m coaches, might be out-of-gauge for Pembroke and Carmarthen so my solution is to cascade the IC225s from the East Coast by introducing more IEPs there and swap the 91 for a TDM fitted 57 at Swansea.

Since you seem to have the same idea as me, any chance you could suggest how to get a campaign started to make this happen?

If they can get EU funding, great, they can use it to wire the other ValleyLines, starting with the Vale Of Glamorgan for it's use as a GWML diversionary route and either Aberdare or Merthyr (because VOG services run through to those places). Either way, they should still cancel Heads Of The Valleys dualing.

WAG will never pay for that....Most of it is in England.

I don't know if it will affect the order of the cascade but the EMT have based their May 2011 timetable on them gaining the 4x156s from Northern which includes the 16:52 Liverpool to Nottingham service being extended to Norwich.  Northern won't be able to release those 156s unless extra stock arrives (they've had to loan a 150 from ATW to have enough units at present.)  The only alternative I can think of will be EMT subleasing 153s off London Midland until the 156s can be released.

It's not even a case of won't. They can't. They have no writ across the border.

Rhygaled, have you actually asked the people who rely on the Heads of the Valleys road to get about - no rail lines remain to allow such journeys - what they think of your ideas? No, thought not. Just like you were so keen to volunteer Cotswold Line passengers to lose their through trains to and from London.

if emt needs 156's and has 153's to spare then why not just double up the 153's then you get a 155 (more or less)

Route restrictions?   I don't know about the East Midlands ... but in our own area if you run a service from Temple Meads towards Portsmouth, you can get to Bath if it's a 165 or 166, to Warminster if it's a 142 or 143, to Southampton Central if it's a 153, and you can only go all the way on a 150 or 158.  And I seem to recall that the issue with 153s is the extra driver's steps added when they were converted into single carriage multiple units.

Managing flexibility?   In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem the brightest of solutions to pair up two trains more or less permanently when I could name you a line that is crying out for an intermediate service between its first and last trains and 153s would be a good start. I can also name services run from the same depot which really need some reduction in overcrowding, be that achieved by running them with an extra carriage or by running another service on a different route which abstracts some of the traffic.

EMT don't have 153s or any other Sprinter stock to spare.  It's London Midland who have spare 153s sitting around doing nothing but apparently FGW are getting some of LM's 153s as well as Northern getting one on loan to help cover for 4 DMUs being out-of-service long term.

The EMT franchise got a very poor deal in terms of stock, while London Midland and CrossCountry's former Central Trains routes got generous deals.  Central Trains used 150s on Crewe-Derby, EMT have to use single 153s on this service.  Central Trains used 3-5 car 158s and 170s on Liverpool-Norwich, EMT have to use a mix of 2 and 4 car 158s, with 2 car being insufficient for most services on that route.

The intention is for all of EMT's 158s to be used on Liverpool-Norwich with the 158s being used on Skegness services being replaced by 156s cascaded from Northern.

The Liverpool-Norwich route is EMT's less punctual and services can't be retimed to take longer due to pathing problems so it's pretty important that stock running this service is at least 90mph capable.  On the Norfolk section there's a substantial section where heavier stock (185s, 22xs) would have to run to lower speed limits than lighter stock (158s, 170s.)

Yes I seem to recall platform clearance issues with 153s being stated as a clearance problem previously.

153s also have less power than 150s, 155s, 156s and 158s so for that reason that can't run routes that have steep gradients such as Buxton-Manchester, which is also a route that 14xs aren't permitted to run. 

Sorry northern I misread one of your previous posts I thought you said emt had the 153,s not lm, just out of interest tho as far as power goes would doubling up 153's not increase the power

Your certainly right about the class 153's struggling with power when pulling off.  a class 153 certainly struggles to pull away from skewen station when working on swanline service yet a class 150 can manage ok. Mind you i have been on a class 175 which has struglled to pull away from skwen

Doubling up would increase the power but would also increase the amount of weight to be moved.  I'm not an expert on how the 153s were engineered so don't know if 2x153s would be as powerful as a 155.

How easily units can move away also partly depends on how many people are crammed on.  A 2 car 142 with 200 people on board seems to take a couple of minutes to reach 15mph.

The 175 issue is possibly that they were specifically designed for North West and North Wales routes and the Marshes and South Wales is a different ball game.  On the other hand the 185s were designed for operating on steep cross mountain track.  Maybe with less interference from the Welsh Assembly 175s would have stayed on North West routes and new 185s would have gone on the Manchester to Carmarthen/Milford Haven route - not that the Desiro seating would have been popular!

What's wrong with it? I've found all the Desiro family trains I've travelled on (esp the 185 and 444) to be perfectly comfortable.

Do you really think the 185 seating in standard class is suitable for 4 hour journeys?  Most people have had enough of it after 2 hours.

Not a question of power, as the engine is the same. It's the extra  4 tonnes per vehicle (compared to a 150) that makes them slow of the mark. 2x 153 is marginally quicker than a single due to frontal aspect versus installed hp ratio, but it don't make much difference.

Yes.

By "most people" I assume you mean the people that you read whining about it on rail forums, not actual passengers. Pretty lazy to assume that "most people" agree with you if you can't actually back that comment up.

So from your comments am I correct in assuming you've either done Manchester Airport to Edinburgh or Liverpool to Newcastle on a 185?  If not how can you say the seating is acceptable for 4 hours of travel? 

I'll have to take a voice recorder with me on to a 185 for evidence of passengers not being happy with the 185 seating but I've got ^1 for everytime I heard someone on a TPE service commenting on the seats being hard I'd be able to travel on TPE without using any of my own money as long as I kept off the 170 operated services.

I've done Glasgow to Manchester using TPE - didn't bother me in the slightest :)

Preston to Edinburgh for me on a 185. I weren't uncomfortable either. I even dozed off.

I've only done Windermere to Preston.  No chance of dozing off due to the continuous automated announcements!

Related to the point IndustryInsider makes if you dozed off you must doze off easily.  Ignoring the 185 seating there are a lot of automated announcements even between stations, the doors on the 185s slam when they close, the doors also close automatically after a couple of minutes so can slam three or four times at one station, plus there's the conductor coming through shouting "tickets please" usually followed by the person with the refreshments trolley.

Yes. Sure-fire trick works for me. It's called a very long day travelling and red wine!

A combination that can have unexpected consequences. Like having to spend the night in Brum after missing Brizzle!

Bristol Edinburgh.

220/1 are NOT repeat NOT designed for this sort of journey.

And if you would like to discuss it calmly don't speak to me the next time I do it.

I've done glasgow to Preston on a 185 and thought it was pretty comfortable!

You must think I'm crazy then, as I'd like to do the 08:28 from Penzance to Glasgow Central - just for the sake of doing it :P

Isn't Plymouth to Aberdeen a longer journey?

Of course there's the definitely longer 0820 Aberdeen to Penzance XC service. 13h22m on a Voyager. Hmm.

Oh I should do that one then, fancy it?

You're on yer own, Ollie. I'd rather go East Coast to London then FGW on proper trains thanks. ;D

Maybe some of the ideas here together you can get a solution that most people will be happy with.

New 7 car mk5 trains replace Voyagers on XC routes.
Voyagers replace 185s on TPE routes.
185s continue to run TPE's Manchester-Hull service displacing 170s.
42 185s and 9 170s are then available directly or indirectly to various operators for extra capacity.

there is an Aberdeen to Penzance! thats my idea of hell!

Sorry but as discussed elsewhere there most likely won't ever be a new build of loco and stock.  Locomotive hauled stock quite simply can't offer all the benefits that multiple units can.  So the only options are DMUs, bi-mode or electrificaiton.

Such a let down. :P

The most likely proposal for XC is of course adding an additional vehicle to each Voyager containing a Pantograph allowing both diesel and electric operation as well as extra capacity.

At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.

The longest I've done on a Voyager is Edinburgh to Leeds which took 2 hours longer than scheduled due to failed overhead electrics and I wouldn't say that was too long to be on a Voyager for. 

Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph.

If the voyagers had decent toilets a proper buffet and more capacity I wouldn't have an issue with them

As originally reported, the same plan was going to provide pantographs for the EMT Meridian fleet.  Last month's Modern Railways reported EMT's MD as saying this was now very unlikely...

Paul

Interesting point that the Pendolino's small windows and longer than usual 'crumple zones' are usually explained away by their top speed, because the 'Javelin' 395s don't have either of those features.  Perhaps technology has moved on, or else someone's interpreted the rules differently...

Paul 

And don't forget INTERCITY 225s, they have bigger windows than Pendos as well don't they, and they should have been built to be crashworthy at 140mph because that's what they were designed to do.

but in the one (and hopefully only) crash involving a Pendo the design proved to be VERY crashworthy, wheras similar crashes involving MKIII and IIII have ended somewhat more tragic. (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert)

But was that crashworthyness anything to do with window size? And wasn't the Pendo writen off? At least some vehicles of the crashed 225 are still in service. Also, Hatfield was refered to as a crash but in everything I've heard about the Pendo incident it was refered to as a de-railment, which sounds like it was a less severe accident anyway.

A train leaving the tracks at 95mph is bloody serious, no matter whether you call it a crash or derailment. Semantics.

But just for the record, Hatfield is referred to as a derailment in the official report. Accident reports rarely use the word 'crash' - it's the media who use that word.

The construction technique used for Pendolino coaches requires the windows to be the size that they are in order to maintain strength and hoop stiffness in the bodyshell. The coaches are made from a series on large aluminium extrusions which are welded together, windows are then cut into the sides once the welding has been done. Unfortunately a weld line bisects the window line so the the dividing pillars have to be of a certain size in order not to create an excessive load on the weld during accidents or even as a result of normal operation.


It will be remembed that failure of the coach structure at the welds was the reason why the Thames Trains 165 unit leading coach disintegrated at Ladbrooke Grove although at that level of impact its distruction was inevitable.

<pendant>

I would go with a "derailment" being where a train comes off the track, and a "crash" as being a colloquial term for a collision, whether it's a collision with summat else on the track, or with something that's not on the line where the train should have been going following on from a derailment.

You can have a crash without a derailment to start it off (Moorgate, February 1975) and you can have a derailment that doesn't result in a crash (Par, June 2010)

</pedant>

I think EMT adding in pantograph vehicles to the 222s was dependant on Midland Mainline electrification.  With XC there are hundreds of miles of tracks they use already under overhead wires and more capacity problems than with EMT's London services.

I would agree with that.  There's been two very different examples of accidents with 323s in the past couple of years which has resulted in a unit being out-of-service for a number of months:
1. A 323 running ECS after running a Manchester-Alderley Edge service derailed. 
2. A Landrover left at the top of a hill near a railway line collided with a 323 running a Manchester-Stoke service.

Number 1 was just a derailment with no collision, number 2 was a collision which I think also lead to a derailment.

both were derailments, who cares if some of the coaches from the 225 set are back in service, the main point is that quite a few people lost their LIVES in Hatfield, wheras only 1 died on the Pendo and I believe she only died from shock rather than from injuries as a direct result of the "Accident".

back to the voyagers, the technology of the Voyagers had not been used before in that combination (computer-controlled high-power underfloor engines powering a variable-voltage/variable-frequency three-phase drive) on the UK network ^ adding a pantograph car would have increased the technical complexity and risk and in some cases there are  also issues of route clearance ^ specifically signalling immunisation (which doesn^t affect DEMUs as their traction packs are effectively electrically isolated from the infrastructure) ^ which would/will trigger a major signalling immunisation project, thus you could still end up with EDMUs running on diesel under the wires because of the signalling.

I think the bottom line with both Voyagers and 185s is that they have disadvantages over the units they replaced.

If you compare Pendolinos with the older Eurostar trains you have 140mph capable trains and 186mph capable trains with the latter having the larger windows and smaller window pillars.

And some advantages.

But it's the disadvantages that people don't like and some of the advantages aren't properly utilised e.g. the 221 tilting facility which allows up to 125mph running on the WCML and the out-of-use stereo system on the XC Voyagers.

I'm sorry...? You're seriously suggesting that 185s are a retrograde step compared to the old and increasingly rat-infested 158s that they replaced on TPEx? Presumably you'd prefer it if those services were still operated by lumbering old class 45s dragging steam-heated mark I stock around.

::)

I said 185s have disadvantages over the units they replaced and the fact is they do:

1. The 3 car 185s replaced 2 and 3 car 158s on North and South TPE routes that can be overcrowded throughout the day.  A 3 car 158 had more seating than a 185.  The fact that they are all 3 car meanings less flexibility:  when they had 158s there were 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 car workings now it's 3 or 6 on 185 routes and 2 car 170 diagrams replaced some of the old 2 car 158 diagrams.

2. The 185s are naturally less fuel efficient than 158s.  This led to TPE installing a GPS system so that engines automatically cut out when on negative gradients to save money.

3. The 185s were intended to decrease journey times.  However, they proved to be too heavy so had to run to lower speed limits so journey times remained the same overall - faster on some sections but slower on others.

4. More commuter style interiors which leads to numerous disadvantages for long distance travellers.

5. Also note 185s replaced Voyagers on Manchester-Scotland.  If I start listing disadvantages of a 185 over a Voyager we'd be here all day.

If you look at the above posts I'm one a few people who's posted on here who hasn't slated Voyagers - I've actually said I prefer them to other stock but I accept that they don't have certain features that HST stock had e.g. buffets, which is why I later said they had disadvantages as well.

So if they were rat infested 158s do you have the numbers of rats that TPE cascaded to South West Trains and First Great Western when they sent the 158s down?

The Voyagers are clearly superior to the 47s and mark 2 coaches they replaced though.

Superior to a class 47 regards motive power. Not superior to the comfort of a mark 2 coach though IMHO.

I traveled on a 185 from Edinburgh to Lockerbie last weekend and it was one of the most uncomfortable journeys I've ever had. I was sat on the floor for the whole of both journeys with overcrowded trains. They were both 1 hour trips. Wouldnt like to spend much longer in that situation! 

Alphalines (158s) are great trains for regional work. 90mph top speed, corridor connections at unit ends (giving lots of flexibility), air conditioning, trolley service (not normally available on lesser Sprinters), doors where they should be for trains on limited stop services and a much lower weight than new DMUs (giving reduced fuel comsuption and track maintanence costs).

Alphalines (158s) are great trains for regional work.
[/quote]

The term Alphaline doesn't refer to all 158s.  The type of 158s that Arriva Trains Wales have are Alphaline units but the TPE ones were of a different type with a different (supposed to be better) type of engine.

Having recently done Cardiff to Southampton on a 150/2, I would say an arguement over the long term comfort of a 185 vs Voyager are pretty academic. I was hopeful that we would get a transfer to a 158 at Bristol, but no, another 150/2. Could have been worse- there was a chance of a 150/1.

Actually, my preferred option for Cardiff to P'mouth would be a 170 series (but one with a quiet interior that didn't ride like tank and rattle like a bus) or a 185 (without the bum wiggle on points and rough track!!) with the cabin comfort of a 175. I definately think it would have to have 1/3 and 2/3 doors though to cope with the sections where commuter "crush loading" is likely to occur.

Nice to see the 150/1 have arrived though- they look smart. Is there going to be a 2x2 seat upgrade, or just new uphostery and lick of paint?

Daniel

2x2 would decrease seated capacity so I doubt it

Wiki says there were five varieties of 158:

• 350 hp Cummins 2-car (158701^158814)
• 350 hp Cummins 3-car (158901^158910)
• 350 hp Perkins    2-car (158815^158862)
• 400 hp Cummins 2-car (158863^158872) for steeply graded Welsh Marches Line
• 400 hp Cummins 3-car (re-numbered to class 159 before? entering service)

It seems the Wales & Borders region has mislaid the higher powered units built for it, as wiki also says ATW's are Perkins units. I wonder what the 400hp 3-car units were meant for originally, before they realised NSE needed them more.

On Alphaline, wiki says the brand was introduced for express services operated by Regional Railways in the Midlands, Wales and the South West, which is basicly everywhere except Scotrail. Since the units have been swapped around alot, I don't think it really matters.

To me the suituation is like the 140mph HS1 EMUs. Class 158 'Express Sprinter' and class 373 'Eurostar' are accepted, so why not class 158 'Alphaline' and class 395 'Javelin'. Before I knew class numbers, I knew 158s as Alphalines, simply because Wales & West ran the service at Warminster at the time (and I lived in Warminster then). I still refer to 158s as Alphalines to my family, as they are more likely to understand what I mean than if I used class numbers.

The Alphaline brand always seemed to be used pretty patchily on services radiating from Birmingham, both under BR and Central, and was never applied to the large TransPennine fleet and Scotrail's sets, so Alphaline means nothing to people across a large part of the territory once covered by 158s.

I think that the reference to "Welsh Marches" actually means "Cambrian", from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth.

Steepest bit of the Marches line is northbound out of Abergavenny, 3+ miles to Llanvihangel at 1 in 82 and 1 in 95.

Steepest bit on Cambrian is eastbound out of Machynlleth, last 3+ miles to Talerddig at 1 in 52 and 1 in 56.

Alphaline was just brand applied to Regional Railways express services, those services were meant to be reservable, have air conditioning, at seat catering service and a BT payphone.
FGW were the last company to use the brand up until June 2006!

A number of factors to take into account if they consider doing it. I assume that First would have to pay for the conversion and would have to be agreed with the leasing company. IF First continue with the franchise they may well consider it worthwhile. Wessex did it with the 150/2's they received a few years ago.

I understood they were meant to replace 142's when they were sent back, so there may be a reason to retain 3+2 on these services. But then again......

That sounds like the thinking of some government departments - ignore the whole of the north of England!

Transpennine express was originally the name BR used as branding for express routes that crossed the Pennines in the North of England.  The routes have changed since a bit since then, for instance, Scarborough to Holyhead is now Scarborough to Liverpool, while Sunderland to Liverpool is now Newcastle to Manchester Airport.  transpenninexpress was then the name Northern Spirit and then Arriva Trains Northern used to refer to those routes, before it became a separate franchise with the North West Express routes collectively known as the TransPennine Express franchise.

While only 158s were painted in Transpennine express liveries, Transpennine routes were only exclusively 158s between 2004 and the very first 185 being introduced.  Prior to 2004 various Sprinters could be seen on TPE routes, not just 158s and even occasionally a Pacer, so they couldn't really claim they were Alphaline if only 158s met the Alphaline conditions.

London Midland and Overground 150s plus the 10 Northern got from Arriva Trains Northern will need some changes internally to meet the upcoming disability changes.

I imagine they'll do similar to what First North Western did with their 150s.  Replace the toilet with a larger accessible toilet, install 2+2 seating between the toilet and the nearest external doors and retain the same number of seats in a 3+2 formation in the rest of the train.

no no no the alphaline branding was used to label newer express trains with enhanced passenger accommodation on certain provincial routes all over the country, it was a brand for the rolling stock and NOT the route 

When I said it didn't matter, I didn't mean some services weren't important. I meant that it doesn't matter that 158s were used on services that weren't branded as Alphaline, as units from various areas without Alphaline services have ended up in areas that did have Alphaline services. As said above, Wales was meant to have the more powerful ones, now we don't (assuming Wiki is correct on this of course). In other words, I think I'm quite correct to call 158s Alphalines (although passengers in some areas might not know).

See, somebody agrees with me, Alphaline is a name for the rolling stock.

What about the 159s? Where were they originally inteded for?

i can only tell you how network south east  ended up with the class and that is for what ever reason too many were produced and the west of england line desperately needed new rolling stock, to be honest if the west of england line wasn't network south east these units probably would have been branded alphaline also

A bit more complicated than that, see http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class159_1.html


No it's not. It was a generic brand, like InterCity, intended, as has been indicated earlier in the thread, to convey the type of train and the services available on board. It just so happened this group of services was operated by 158s and some of the trains had stickers or liveries applied on the bodywork that said Alphaline. But lots of Regional Railways services worked by 158s were never branded as Alphaline, even though there was a catering trolley, seat reservations available, etc, etc.

sorry i should have made it clear it was a name for certain rolling stock offering certain services on express routes to showboat the networks then flagship provincial express units,so i guess that means that it could run a manchester cardiff service as an alphaline service but if it say did exmouth to exeter it wouldnt be an alphaline service as its not an express service,and it wouldnt have trolly, in other words if a service was substituted with a pacer it would nolonger be a alphaline service

There was an electrification scheme on a Regional Railways route (think it might have been Birmingham Cross City) that meant that the three car Cummins 400 bhp sets 158873-895 were able to be released. The Tory MP's were getting worked up about indifferent locohauled trains on the Waterloo - Exeter line and a general election was fast approaching. They were not prepared to wait for the gangway ended class 165 derivative, notionally class 172. Gordon Pettit who was the main man at Regional Railways had been a BR-Southern Region general manager in his time. The rest we all know as partially completed 158873-895 were packed off to Rosyth for conversion to 159/0. The coach numbers reflect the original class 158 set numbers.

Slightly off topic, but rumour doing the round that National express east anglia have done a deal with DRS to provide a loco hauled train on weekdays to cover for the class 156 which was heavily damaged and has yet to be repaired.

 Currently being disccussed on the uk railforums site.

 Havent had full confirmation whether or not this is true ,although could this be using the 47's which are being used on the summer saturday drags to great yarmouth.

what a pity FGW did keep at least 1 loco hauled train or ATW use  some of their spare MK2 carriages on the new fishguard service

Gosh I'd forgotten all about those. I remember all the fuss when they were first installed. I wonder who the first person was who shouted "I'm on the train ......."

Although not Class 150s  it is understood that FGW have started reforming 2 Coach 158s into 3 Car Sets but this is all part of the big picture.   I have heard that 158960 and 158961 have been formed.        However, yesterday on the 16 42 Gloucester to Weymouth I saw a Hybrid numbered 2 Coach 158.       1 Coach of 745 and 1 of 762 but unfortunately did note whether 52 or 57 coaces.    The Set number on 745 was 952  but because the other was coupled to a 153 (LM hire one !!) I was the wrong side to see the Set number.

52762 was stopped at SPM for repairs over last weekend, was due to be reformed into a 3-car sometime this week.

Reformed Tuesday night back to 3-cars.

The other 5 2-car 158's (10-vehicles) will become 3 3-cars (9-vehicles) with one coach as an engineering spare to hopefully minimise the number of shortened 158's running about.

Saw coach 57745 today at Cardiff carring set number 158952 and attached to a 2-car set (ie. forming one of the hybrid 3-car sets). I also saw a FGW's real class 158 centre car, numbered 58715. I assume that means it was once part of a 3-car 158 numbered 158715, am I right? However, today it was part of 158798.

I assume that means the one 4-car diagram that apears to be on Cardiff - Portsmouth at the moment (I saw one such train today) will be reduced to 3-car?

No, centre car 58715 has always been part of unit 158798. Units 158798/799/800 had centre cars where the last three two digits of their number didn't match the unit number.

AIUI from older platform 5 books the 158 centre car sequence is 58701-58717, the 'last three' numbers didn't match up with 2 and 7 cars as originally delivered, although 701-714 were originally in units 801-814 so the last two digits matched.

Units 798-800 contained 58715-717 as new.

Centre cars 58718-58739 were in the SWT 159/0s as built, however none of the 159/0 individual vehicles fit the unit numbers because they follow on in sequence from the 158/0s, reflecting their as built condition.

Nowadays the various centre cars are nearly all moved into different units - SWT's renumbered 159/1s taking 8 of them seemingly at random...

Paul

I was the PRO for NSE SW at the time and it was ever so slightly different to this.  As I remember it, the financial case for the class 172 couldn't be made to stack up.  I was bag carrier at a Westminster meeting of the line's MPs (called by NSE) where Chris Green and Peter Field told them the situation and said they were looking to see what could be done and, let's just say, the MPs weren't happy.  Robert Adley, the Christchurch MP who covered, I think, just one station, Gillingham, and an incandescent Paddy Ashdown particularly stick in the mind! 

The 3 car 158 solution emerged not too long after this and, as you say, I'm sure having Gordon Pettitt as Regional Railways head helped.  The 3 car 158s were taken from the new build for the Transpennine route.

Passed what I believe were 150108 and 150126 at approx 10 55 this morning between Gloucester and Cheltenham this morning while travelling on XC 09 45 Cardiff to Nottingham.
I understand they are initially coming to FGW for Summer but possible staying as part of the Cascade now that they have been sent.

Every prospect of that being the case, as LM 172s are now passing the fault-free trial running benchmarks and a preview run is pencilled in for early next month, so passenger service next month looks a good bet - at long last.

Just wondering if anybody has had any sightings yet of 150108 and 150126 in service ?

both are currently at the marsh.

I have read on another Forum that they should commence service with FGW on Monday next.

i have  read on uk railforums that 1 class 172 will be working a special on 2nd august from Stourbridge to Leamington.

no idea of timings though

I've the timings.....as I should be on it :-)

Ok Please let us know how it goes

1002 off Stourbridge, takes about an hour, returning from Leamington @ 1126

Read on WNXX that has been confirmed that FGW will be keeping 153325 & 153333 in addition to the class 150's from London Midland.

when you say they get to keep 153333 .... was this a type'o, or is the original 150 beyond repair or is  WNXX  not actually a good source of confirmation :-p

Thats what it said on WNXX so i think i will blame them.

i know mate, they probably just got the numbers mixed up

And another forum, I won't quote it, is saying something a little different.  >:(

Unfortunately there are far too many armchair enthusiasts trying to work out what is going on with respect to the ownership of stock and the transfers that may or may not happen due to the introduction of Class 172s by London Midland. We don't always know where posters get their information, who they work for or whether they are merely repeating information that they have got from other rail forums. How do we differentiate between the information they give us and the information that posters who are "in the know" give us?

There is almost as much speculation and conflicting information about the Class 180s that may or may not be returning to FGW. Every time a Class 142 returns north for maintenance or a repaint someone somewhere, usually in the north, speculates that they're starting to go back to Northern for good. Until it returns south the following weekend of course!

Personally I think that the poster on the WNXX forum may well be correct as the Class 150s would be in service by now if they were staying just for the summer. If units come then surely borrowed units will go. If FGW do keep the two Class 150s mentioned then perhaps they won't be hiring the two units from ATW each day? What should be more of interest to this forum is the total amount of units available to FGW on a daily basis after all the stock changes have taken place.

I'm on the press launch for LM's 172 fleet on Tuesday - I can ask them direct for some news/info on these sets..

150126 is on Exeter Depot as we speak, has been de-branded so one presumes it's staying in the west

Perhaps we should ignore all the Cascade speculation and believe things as they actually happen and not before.

If anyone is around Bristol TM tommorow, stated on uk railforums that 150108 could be out on the severn beach route tommorow.

Not sure whether it is correct though, but you might want to keep yours eyes out just in case

The source i've read it from (the one on WNXX) would be in a position to confirm whether or not the cascade is true - so I believe it.

here is a video of 150126 at Plymouth today. I have read that it should be working the 09:00 Cardiff - Plymouth service tommorow (monday) and the rest of its diagram.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDNJ3Crgp3A

150108 should be out on the severn beach line as i have said previuosly

Mod note: Edited to insert link to video. bignosemac

150126 is staying, it has spent the last week plus at SPM being given a 'conversion exam' to get it in sync with the FGW exam schedules, and has being given all mods etc. to bring it into line with the other FGW 150/1s.

150108 is also staying and will receive the same treatment as 126, along with the rest of the 150/1s we are due to recieve which should start arriving  in small batches next month.

AFAIK, the two LM 153s are tempry and should be going back to LM when they are surplus.

I'm hearing different versions depending on who I ask. The two 153's currently on hire are temporary for the high summer service but I think two 153's are part of the deal, however these might not be the two currently running for FGW.

this evening i was at my father in laws, when he spotted a 153 cross Angarrack Viaduct heading for Penzance between 1900-2000 this evening, cant remember the exact time, but i arrived at his at 7 and left at 8!
The father in law commented about the livery being a completely different one to what he's ever seen before, any one know what livery he may of seen, i was positioned out of view, holding something heavy so was unable to get a glance.

Almost certainly one of the LM pair I would have thought. All the rest of them are in 'Local Lines for Local People' livery.

Was that an intentional reference to 'The League of Gentlemen' TSM?  ;) ;D

London Midland, I'd suggest, too: a set turned up at Highbridge & Burnham, where I was working, a month ago - that fair startled me!  :o

"Whats that Tubs, we'll have no trouble here"

 ;D ;D

Just had a look, I'd say it was probably 153325 running ECS to Pzed off the Falmouth branch.

The only other non FGW liveried units at the moment (apart from the 142's which dont get to Cornwall that often) are the two 'Pontins' liveried 150/1's as mentioned above.

Travelled on 150126 between Cardiff and Bristol T.M. Saturday and quite nippy, in fact.

it was from his description an LM 153.
he described what can be seen here in the last of grahame's pictures
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9319.0;topicseen

Just heard that the 2 LM 153's are now to be permanent fixtures in the FGW franchise.

Have those 153s been refurbished by LM or its predecessor recently, or was it just a re-livery job they received?

refurbishment was  around 2008 i believe, one difference is the on-board customer info screens

A picture for those unfamiliar with what FGW have acquired from LM interior wise..



(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nWteyn5LrEg/TfEcwBju6GI/AAAAAAAAABI/-2qDza1OLTI/s640/2011-06-09%25252011.57.19.jpg)

And yes - it does say 'Class 153' all of the time!

It does indeed - I was enraptured, just waiting for it to show something else!  ::) :D ;D

looks as if porterbrook are looking into reforming the class 153 Units back into 2 Car sets to allow them to  comply with the new Disability access rules due in 2020

On DFT web site:

1. These interventions in total procure the operation of 32 additional carriages for these franchises and will deliver additional seats into Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle from December 2011.

2. They principally do so through the use of carriages that will be released from service in the London Midland (LM) franchise due to the deployment of new Class 172 DMUs. In addition, Northern are also receiving 14 additional carriages from First Great Western (FGW).

3. The change in rolling stock for each franchise under these agreements is as follows:

LM will retain 6 x Class 150 carriages (but release 2 x Class 153 carriages to FGW);
FGW will receive 4 x Class 150 carriages (and 2 x Class 153 carriages from LM)
Northern will receive 8 x Class 150 carriages from LM and 14 x Class 142 carriages cascaded from FGW.
4. There are 8 Class 150 carriages becoming surplus in London Midland which are not covered by the agreements with these TOCs. These trains are non-standard units that may subsequently be sought by another TOC, PTE or local authority for additional services.

5. The total cost of this investment is ^16.7m. This covers the net cost of additional passenger services until the end of each franchise.

6. The following table shows the total planned seating and standing increases for each city each day resulting from these extra carriages and related changes. These are the combined figures for the three hour morning and evening peak periods.

To view the table that accompanies this release, please follow the link below;
https://nds.coi.gov.uk/ImageLibrary/DownloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=4201

7. The figure given for Birmingham is that which would apply if a proposed change to the Service Level Commitment is approved. This change is currently being consulted on by London Midland. If the change is not approved a lower increase in capacity would apply in Birmingham.

So just to confirm this is all about the famous 26 carriages previously unaccounted for, and is additional to the 9 units already allocated to FGW.
Northern have done well, given the earlier DfT announcement that was widely reported suggesting that the 142s returning from FGW depended on a new business case, and wouldn't necessarily return to use.
 
Also, presumably the 8 eventual 'spares' are the two 'non-standard' three car units, and the two odd carriages whose original 'other halves' were written off in accidents...

Paul

I must be missing something obvious here, but how does coupling two non-compliant cars together make a compliant unit?

I think it is because the reduction in capacity of a single 153 when fitted with a DDA compatible toilet and wheelchair space is too much, but by reverting to a two car unit you win back the space of the two small cabs, and then only one carriage has to have the major modifications - the other could become fully seated with its toilet removed.

So as a two car 155 the overall BCR is totally different to that of 2 individual 153s?

Paul 

Can you give us the actual URL - I want to print the press release off....

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420760&SubjectId=36 (http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420760&SubjectId=36)

the 153 has loads of room at one end for a disabled loo which is currently luggage space

Factoid - designed originally as a parcels/freight area because when the units were originally introduced Red Star Parcels still did a significant amount of business in delivering local parcels (hence why it's a locker rather than a simple shelf).

But these days very, very useful as a luggage area - the Pembroke Dock line in the summer springs to mind as an example.

'Factoid'

Saw that word and immediately thought of Steve Wright. Does that age me?

EDIT: On reflection, probably not. I believe Steve Wright and his team are still coming out with 'Factoids' on BBC Radio 2 every weekday afternoon.

This seems to have been picked up by the bristol evening post:
 
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Extra-seats-commuters/story-13109855-detail/story.html

Glad to see FGW getting som much need extra carriages even if is only a few.

hopefully in a few years we will start to see a few of the class 165/166's arriving

the 153 has loads of room at one end for a disabled loo which is currently luggage space
[/quote]And where will the luggage go? not sure if you've noticed but we already struggle with luggage space!

And where will the luggage go? not sure if you've noticed but we already struggle with luggage space!
[/quote]

Come on.  This isn;t about reacting to customer demand.  Its about complying with regulations which is MUCH more important in Britain today

 Slightly off topic but it Looks like overcrowding is likely to get worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14491488

I do hope FGW or whoever operates the franchise next will run all the IEP's in pairs instead of just 1 unit during the off peak.

I do hope crossrail will help relieve some of the pressure between Reading & London Paddington. Hopefully they will stop the heathrow express services and use those extra 4 paths an hour to run more high speed services between Reading & Paddington

if luggage was that much of a priority modern units would be built with a decent amount of luggage space, now when i say priority.... for passengers it may well be .... but a bum on a seat makes more money than a suitcase on a rack

How do you define a 'decent amount of luggage space' when so many people show up these days with massive wheeled cases large enough to carry another member of the family?   

Hmm... thinks of 1960s TV series - 'Man in a Suitcase'...   ;D

Paul   

These figures relate solely to the peaks, so I can't see how you get from that to off-peak operations.

Interesting, would the cabs actually go? They could just use the space saved by not having a toilet at all in one car to replace the seats lost by having a bigger toilet in the other car. Still no word on any plans for Pacer replacment or DDA modifications for 2020 though.

I've never been in a 155 (as they are all up north) - so does anyone know how the middle of the complete 155 unit is currently fitted out?



Would you seriously expect there to be?  They've got 9 years to go - even if they waited to issue an ITT for 3 or 4 years from now they'd still have bags of time...

Paul

The ROSCOs are unwilling to buy DMUs due to possibility of further electrification. If Pacers are to be replaced using new EMUs rather than building new DMUs (either directly or through cascades) then plans do need to start emerging now, and of course DDA discussions for mark3 and 153 vehicles have already started.

I don't believe in posting certain items posted on other Forums without substance and which may be merely based on what somebody may state they have heard or stories that are just based on rumour.  Howeve, this would appear to be genuine in so much as The London Midland website states that the introduction of 172s in service on the Snow Hill lines will commence next week, September 5th. No details are published as to how many will be in service at the outset and the rate of introduction, but we should then expect the arrival of the 150/1s to FGW as they become released.   (Note 150108 and 150126 already arrived in advance) .

A (usually very reliable) website, has mentioned that whilst 150108 and 150126 have arrived with FGW, two additional 153s will be heading this way.

Anyone shed any light on this?

I thought FGW already had the 2 class 153's from London Midland which it was decided would be staying with FGW?

That's what I thought! But as it mentions 108 & 126 which arrived after the 153s, as well as being dated 26/08/11, made me wonder whether it was an additional 2 on top of the 2 we already have..? Website was www.thejunction.org.uk

The two 153s just announced by DfT are presumed to be the two already with FGW, but they could have been on temorary hire previously and yet to be officially transferred.  So the junction might just be reporting the administrative follow up, IYSWIM...

A further possibility is that it wouldn't be that unusual if those two 153s already with FGW went back and were replaced by a different pair.
 
Whereas the original 9 ex LM 150s have apparently already been 'transferred' to FGW even though only two have arrived, i.e. the reverse is the case with the 150s...   Then there's the two more 150s due as part of the recent allocation, so although 9 have been transferred, there are still 9 to arrive, so it's easy to see how reports get muddled...

Paul

Most of the space on 155's is used for luggage / package storing shelves. The 155 only have 1 toilet, the space in the other coach is a stand up bike store. The only loss of seating must be in that coach where a toilet is placed where the bike store was. Since the mini drivers cab is in the parcel space at the end of vehicle it is no wonder that it is tiny. Therefore I suspect that these cabs would not be removed should they be reformed into 155's, perhaps just closed off?

_{Edited in an attempt to unmangle use of the 'quote' function - this required some educated guesswork on my part, hopefully it hasn't altered the meaning of what the poster intended.}

AIUI, they could keep non-compliant vechicles in traffic anyway if the DfT grants a derrogation.

Thanks I B.

I'm not sure they can derogate after 2020 can they? They will finally have to be compliant....

Yes i think they have to be made compliant and if tehy cant they have to be withdrawn and replaced, probably one of the reasons why the valley lines look like they are going to be wired. Also has another advantage of freing up some class 150's perhaps some could be sent down to west wales and some to Northern or FGW

For Pacers to be DDA compliant the following needs to happen:

1. Removal of the double step or all station platforms in Pacer areas rebuilt to the same height and a minimum width to avoid any ramp issues.  The latter would require compulsory land order purchases to make platforms wider in some cases e.g. at Guide Bridge station.
2. New DDA toilet at either front or rear of train (due to door layout) or Pacers to have no toilets and to be kept for short routes only.  The latter would require a number of Pacers to be cascaded away from North West England which has too many Pacers to keep them only on short services.
3. New doors that are strong enough to deal with a wheelchair crashing in to them.  Also new door controls.
4. Replacement seats on most 142s as the bus bench seats are too low down to comply.
5. New larger, brighter destination displays and on board PIS.

The cost would run in to hundreds of millions, so it isn't economically viable to do.

It was decided that transport needed until the end of 2019 to be fully accessible in the mid 1990s.  DfT can't just say 20 years later that wasn't enough time, they needed to say that years ago if it was the case.

It's very likely that exemptions will be made for certain rolling stock. European legislation harmonisation will see less stringent rules on disabled access. If new entrant countries to the EU can carry on using ancient rolling stock, then it won't be impossible for the UK to do so also.

heard  on uk railforums that 150101 is at St Phillips marsh

it is indeed.

we'll start seeing them arrive now as the 172's were due to start in service with LM this week.

are the 142's goin up north as new 150's arrive down here or is fgw going to have extra stock for a while?

As I posted on 29th August

Saw 150101 on the maintenance road yesterday evening - looked in reasonable nick too

Hopefully FGW will now stop borrowing ATW 150s, as ATW aparently need at least one extra unit for the new Fishguard services. Anyone know if that arangment has ceased yet.

I think that's what we were told last night, yes.

Northern need the FGW 142s and LM 150s in service in time for the December timetable change while the Northern 156s are needed at EMT in service in time for the December timetable change.

I imagine in worse case scenario the 180s could stay with Northern beyond the Dec timetable change.  However, the Dec timetables have been written to include extra services.  For instance, Northern are running more services to Chinley so that TPE don't need to stop their overcrowded 185s at Chinley at peak times.

The Arriva 150s are still with FGW at the moment, on their so-called 'day release' between Bristol Parkway and Weston (and indeed wherever else). 

On the subject of 142s, it made a rather unusual 'traction' change on the 23:06 from Bristol to Exeter last night.

In the interests of housekeeping, I've split off the emerging discussion relating to booked train formations on the Cornwall branches - you can now find that topic here:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9458.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9458.0)

I have read on wnxx about some drivers suggesting to take 1 of the class 142's in London Paddington as part of a farewell tour. I would  like to see the looks on people faces as a pacer turns up at Paddington

Would be doubly amusing if they booked it for the 1803 to PNZ!!!! I'd love to see FGW attempt to provide a 'Pullman Dining' service on a 142.  :P ;) ;D

So is this the last week of the arangment? If not, where is ATW's extra unit going to come from for Fishguard services, magic a 153 or two to have 100% relibility?

Might just be possible that the arrangment could be ending this week. hopefully the class 121 will also work so that another pacer doesnt have to be used to cover

ATW still seem to have 150s to spare without these two depuising for 158s and even 175s.    The 121 is usually replaced by a 153 if not available although some times a Pacer.     

Round about 1998 and over the turn of that decade Wales and West used to run a 21 25 Cardiff to Paddington and returning at 01 45 via Bath.  FGW (or their equivalent at that time) had withdrawn the service so Wales and West decided to bid for the gap in the days before DFT micro-managing.   It was booked to be worked by a 158 and proved quite popular until the SRA put an end to it.     Now for the punch line !!!   One night due to non-availability of a 158, it was worked by a 143 and kept time !!!  It was also worked by a 150/2 on a very rare occasion.

It's been suggested before: see http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s81/chris64ex4/Rail%20odds-sods/142030ExeterWestYard10-06-2008.jpg  ;) :D ;D

Since posting have learnt 150282 loaned by ATW to Northern Rail so that proves the point, I think, of their availability.

There's a heated debate going on another forum now about North Wales having surplus capacity outside the peak summer season, while the North West seems to have a peak season all year because as soon as one event/season finishes, another starts, so there's always some lines that need more than the bog standard 2-3 carriages.

Reported 150102 now arrived at the Marsh and 150101 out in traffic today but have no details of it's work

I would prefer it to be definite information rather than a quote on WNXX Forum but it appears that 150202 and 150214 are being prepared at Tyseley for transfer to FGW.    They are being reformed after being split to form middle cars in 150/0s to turn them into 3 Car Units and with through access between each coach.   I have read of a suggestion that the Driving Controls had been removed from the cabs as being redundant at that time so a process of re-fitting will have to be carried out.
I am aware that the ATW daily hires have finished but can anybody confirm if the SWT 158 is still used on the afternoon Brighton diagram.     If still in use on FGW, my hunch is that it will remain until conditions are right for the 2 Car 158s to be formed into 3 Car Sets and provide 3 Cars on the Brighton.

Did the Pacer actually get to Paddington?

I know one made it to Reading, as per this uk.railway posting:

Yes, the 143 reached Paddington

Thought it went to Waterloo not Pad?

To Paddington.    How I am be so certain as the train (21 25 ex Cardiff) replaced an FGW train to Paddington which had been withdrawn.Could not have gone to Waterloo as Pacers are prohibited from 3rd Rail

'Tis a myth. They run in service every day over the 3rd rail in Merseyside. Similarly they ran to Eastleigh for refurb not that long ago.

It was Railtrack Southern at the time who were apprehensive of them.    Ther also banned them on their patch altogether because they were afraid of them being too light weight to operate Track Circuits and not show up in Signal boxes.   Thar is why they are not allowed beyond Warminster for example.    Other TOCs were not so apprehensive.     Special dispensation was obtained for them to go to Eastleigh
Apologies.   I shpuld have said Railtrack Zones not TOCs

Yes, it's still used... I had the pleasure of sitting in declassified First Class Seating and a nice cup of coffee onboard last week ;) ;D :o

reported on uk railforums that 150280 is to move from ATW to NXEA to provide extra cover.

Do NXEA operate any 150's? would it not be better for 150280 to go to Northern to allow another class 156 to be sent to NXEA instead?

NXEA do not drive 150s any more.   More like Northern who already have 150282 on loan from ATW

I have now read that 150280 will not be available to work for some weeks as all the Norwich dricers have got to be retrained on the traction.      As this is really off Board perhaps we should now close the topic as queries have been resolved.

Further to cascade it has been reported on another Forum that 150202 arrived at Marsh Friday night 23rd.    The 2 X 150/2s should be more useful due to their through access to similar Types.    It is also reported that 2 X 142 will be returning to Northern within the next 2 weeks.  also that 150s on arrival from London Midland are going to Barton Hill for painting in FGW livery.
I seem to be the only member posting on this thread which I thought would have generated much more interest due to a major upheaval of Units and transformation affecting FGW currently being undertaken.    There have other posts on the thread but appertaining directly to the topic.

I would rather suspect that there are many people very interested indeed and reading the thread ... but without the information / knowledge to add anything useful.  I certainly find such material useful - thank you, but alas I'm in no position to contribute additional data. Keep up the reports - thanks  ;)

Thank you Graham, I will keep them going.   However, I am more on less relying on information from other Forums so I have to trust in such information being correct.   I certainly want to avoid posting rumours rather than facts, quite naturally.

metrolink have built a new fleet of 20 deltics and will be running them in push pull mode between coombe junction halt and watchet ... there you go now you have read something on a forum go and post it on another   ;D

I don't think so somehow.      With due respect, I foind this a little sarcastic when I am only trying to pass information on this Forum.

Phil, I'm a bit wary about speaking for relex but I'm sure that comment was only made in good-natured jest, with no malice intended.

For what it's worth I've found the information you've been posting very interesting - I had no idea that FGW was going to receive any additional 150/2 units formed of the centre cars out of LM's 150/1s, for example.

Yes, the 150/2s seemed to come out of the blue.     They has been no mention of them until very recently so perhaps they are the additional sets that have been allocated for transfer over and above the original plan.

yes sorry i wasn't meaning to be harsh in any way its just anything written on forums (including this one) should be taken with a pinch of salt unless backed up with source of reference

Yes thank you for continuing to post updates on the class 150's etc.

Apparently a brand new 172 first day in service caught fire at shrub hill on thursday night just happened to be there when all the station staff were rushing around armed with fire extingushiers.
Some sort of failure of drive train components caused a small fire

Hello Relex
Apology accepted.   Perhaps more in fun I realise.    Info from WNXX FOrum which I would expect to be a reliable source and based on what we kno0w already and are expectiong.

Surely another reason why an Unfounded Rumours and Gossip section would be a valuable addition.  That way, possible happenings could be flagged up, but moved to appropriate forum slots when conclusively acknowledged to be fact.

Thats a good idea,

Phile, i am finding your postings informative and interesting, am reading but have no furtheer comments to add, take note of the number of "views" of the thread rather than the number of replies

Maxwell P .... that *will* be happening very soon.   It's been discussed between the moderators and the ball is in my court ... in which (however) there are lots of other balls bouncing around, some of them which need time-dependent attention.

Now set up, I notice.   Hope anything dubious will posted on that boards.

Seems a bit strange that FGW are getting 2 x LM 150/2s and Northern are getting 6 x LM 150/2s with both Northern and FGW receiving LM 150/1s.

If FGW got all 150/1s I would have thought it would make diagramming easier as the 150/1s would all have higher density seating whereas the 150/2s would all have low density seating but giving FGW 2 x LM 150/2s make two trains an exception to the rule.

When it came to this additional pair of '150s' perhaps FGW had a preference for the /2s, because it gives them through gangways for multiple working.  It isn't unusual to see them operating their existing 150/2s through Southampton paired with 158s.

Paul

I have it on reasonably good authority that the 2+3 seatings on the 1xx series is for the chop and that a more comprehensive internal refurb and CCTV install is planned.  From a guard's point of view, the sets are great to work non multi'd, as the cab is much more comfortable.  Now that there are intermediate door control panels on most sets, that little hassle is also taken care of.

FGW will have around 20 150s with 3+2 seating.  If there are proposing to do one or two at a time to maximise the number of units in service and to do them to something like Wessex Trains standards won't that mean the refurbishment will be completed just as the FGW franchise is finishing?

As would the mooted 180 refurb, should the units come this way.  All we can do is speculate :-) Perhaps the major part of this thread is a candidate for the new 'Rumour Mill section.   :o


Possibly someone on the fleet side knows more????

The 180s if they come this way, would enter service in May12, after driver trainjng & a refresh. 4 out of 5 a day, with one spare.

Not sure where the idea of any further refurb wprk came from?

As I've said before, that's pushing it reliability wise.

Tell that to FGW!

Didnt get the number but i passed 1 of the centro liveried class 150's at Cardiff central while is was on the 17:40 departure to Milford Haven which was  formed of a 3 carriage class 175 but was still overcrowded.

Actually, I agree, Maxwell P - but I'm not inclined to weed through the whole of a 16 page topic, trying to pick out those individual posts which have no apparent foundation in fact!

Please, for the future: if you're just speculating, or repeating rumour - use the new Rumour Mill board?

CfN  :-X

FGW did issue a tender some months back for a Class 180 refresh.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/100424

A repaint, replacement seat covers and new carpets is what you'd expect for 10 year old stock that's never had a refresh.  ATW are doing/have done the same with their 175s.

It was reported some time ago that 150/1s would be employed on the Severn Beach line at some stage, the indication orignally being that it would happen in May 2011.    However, it did not take place then and the 143s continued.
However, in recent weeks I have noticed a greater proportion of 150s (both /1s and/2s)  in lieu of 143s.   One day both the 2 diagrams were 150s.   I am wondering if any body can say if there was a diagram change in the September change of diagrams

You can only assume that whatever was planned for the 150s generally is running at least 6 months late, since the 172s are running so late;  hence anything previously proposed for the Severn Beach line could still happen over the next few months as the cascade gradually completes?

Paul

I don't know whether its a diagram change, but I too have seen more instances of 150/1 and 150/2 in use on the SVB Line of late. My last three trips have been on said untits. I'm beginning to miss the bouncy squealy fun of a 143. Here's hoping I get one tomorrow AM for the first day of my holiday....  ;D

It could be there is a lot of "ad hoc" allocation of Units during this transitional period.  It may be that the 143s are staying behind at Exeter to provide additional capacity on the Devon Metro and  also in preparation for the return of the 142s to Northern.
   We may not see things settle down until the December Timetable change when, hopefully, all the 172s will be in service and the Cascade virtually near to completion.   The December Diagrams could then reflect the revised allocation of Units to FGW.

It seems to be the case that 143+143 or 143+153 better matches capacity to demand on the Devon internals and a single 150/1 can cope with the Severn Beach line. I'm less involved with West services than before so not really sure what the stratgey is on that side of FGW these days.

There is now a class 150/1 diagram on the Severn Beach line.

I did hear that there was talks going on to try and get these non standard 3 carriage class 150's

Glad to see that some common sense is being applied to the situation.



Slightly off topic I also wonder any word on the Salisbury - Swindon service starting any time soon? I know it was hoped that a service could possibly start in december.

Interesting idea.  I'll let you know if I hear anything about it.

It would make sense for whoever takes on the 150/0s to take on the mismatched pair of 150/2 vehicles but to use them to form the 4 x 3 car 150s.  Having 2 x 3 car 150s means either that there would only be one 3 car diagram or if there were two then one would frequently be operated by a unit of a different size due to maintenance.

Is the transfer provisionally confirmed or are they just in talks?  I'm sure a few operators would have expressed an interest in the 'spare' 150 vehicles.

Deleted

The thing that interests me about 150s replacing FGW 16xs is the difference in top speed.  Can they just replace 90mph paths with 75mph paths in an area like Reading?

Am I right in thinking that when you say 'Turbos will be released' that they will in fact mean a 2 car 16x will be replaced by a 150/0 and then the 16x will be used to strengthen an existing Turbo service?

150s will never get into turbo terrotiry - rather the other way about.

Deleted

OK, I'll take that bet, especially as Reading depot won't be geared up to deal with 150s.

Presumably that would be the idea.  The speed issue wouldn't be a problem on the Reading-Basingstoke route, where Turbos don't reach 90mph.


What makes you so sure about that then?  As a temporary fix to help with overcrowding issues until the Class 319's cascade to FGW, it does sound like possibly a good idea.  I remember Class 158's working Turbo duties between Oxford and Bicester not too long ago, why not 150's?

When did they have 158's in oxford?

Any chance someone has a photo.

I personally think it might be a good idea to use the 3 carriage class 150's on the Reading - Bassingstoke service if it offers more seats and free up some class 165's to boost capacity on other services.

Hang on - these 150s are *replacing* other stock, not in addition to. So they won't be appearing anywhere stock isn't going....

We're not talking about those units in the current cascade plan are we!?

We're talking about the non-standard prototype Class 150/0 vehicles talked about in the DfT's press release as surplus:  "There are eight Class 150 carriages becoming surplus in London Midland which are not covered by the agreements with these TOCs. These trains are non-standard units that may subsequently be sought by another TOC, PTE or local authority for additional services."

Anyway, I've not heard anything about the Basingstoke rumour, but 'Maxwell P' seems pretty confident of his source.

Oh, ok, thanks for clarifying.

I still don't think they'll come up to Reading depot though

Also remember if they come to Reading then they would have be route locked to the basingstoke or gatwick as these are the only ones with guards.

Reading depot already deals with 15x and 14x units on rare occasions now.

DOn't know for sure but I'm guessing that on a route like RDG - BSK (which stops at more or less every lamp post along the way) that top speed is an irrelevance because the train is unlikely to get going that fast regardless of the unit. Acceleration is more of an issue in keeping to time.

They just have to be fast enough to get out the way of all those 75 mph freights and the 1.5 tph XC in each direction - fortunately the latter seem to be timetabled with about 10 mins spare on that stretch...

Paul

The last thingI heard was that DaFT were putting into store.    Best wait to see what happens after it has rather than surmise.

150122 now with FGW.    More 172 Diagrams on LM so the 150/1s should be flowing.

More 150s arrived from LM who now have at least 8 172s working in service and increasing all the time.   I am not going to quote any individual numbers as I have had conflicting reports on which numbers.    At the rate of 172s now entering traffic the whole transfer should be complete in the very near future.   I have been given to understand that the first 142s should be leaving sooner than later.    I don't know how the Diagrams will finish up or if the 150s will be allocated to PM or EX.    However, the lack of through access  on 150/1s will no doubt have a bearing in so much as  not good for revenue if coupled.    Perhaps somebody may be able to comment on the 143s stayiing in Exeter area and that 150/1s will work the SVB.

The 150/1's could directly replace the 142's. Would make no difference in the fact neither of them have corridor ends.

And given that the 150/1s are (AFAIK) receiving intermediate door controls they should be easier for conductors to work than the Pacers, where they keep having to run to the rear cab at each station.

150s from LM have started to arrive at Newton Heath for Northern so I would assume the FGW transfers to be complete at any time.

Northern are only getting the initial 8 units they were promised as 156 replacement and extra capacity for now.  There are another 6 due as 180 replacement and the additional 4 for extra capacity confirmed in the last DfT announcement.

Unless there was an announcement saying FGW would get all of their 150s first I wouldn't see why Northern getting some means the last 150s to go to FGW are imminent.

Should not be long though.   
150202 out in traffic yesterday (Wed) on 06 26 Bristol Parkway to Penzance. with swapping cars around with 10/1s, the other 150/2 is now reputedly to be 150216.   Not sure for certain if has been re-liveried but would assume still 3 + 2 seating.    I think perhaps we should  wait and see for certain in due course.

There is a report on uk railforums that FGW are to test a class 150 on the route between Reading & Bassinsgtoke today.

I have nod idea  whether or not this has been confirmed, but if anyone is in the area they may want to keep their eyes out.

That's correct.  There's obviously something to this 150's on the Basingstoke route!  Here's today's special diagram:


(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6104/6249377044_aea2c6c3a6_z.jpg)

It probably isn't that difficult to look after a DMU or two away from their normal base for a few days at a time.  It's exactly how LM currently provide for the Bletchley - Bedford service, (the Marston Vale line), the units rotate from Tysley every few days, and are outbased at Bletchley EMU depot; similarly SWT's EMU depot at Bournemouth looks after a single 158 four nights a week.

Now if it were suggested that 150001/2 were permanently based at Reading and never got back to Exeter that would be awkward, but I'd surmise that a Monday - Friday outbasing should be possible, with them being maintained at Exeter over the weekend when Turbos could return to the route...

Paul

001 and 002 are coming to FGW, the two orphaned 150/2 vehicles from LM are at Eastleigh at the moment.

150130 was used on the tests today there is a photo of it at Reading on uk railforums 

IIRC, the orphans are both non WC.  I heard that they would be hybridised with a 153 units to make 2 car train, but in theory, nothing to stop a 3 car 150/2 either.

No but the idea of a three car set of sufficient capacity to work services without strengthening (thus no need for gangwayed cab ends) make poking the loose 150/2 coaches into 150/1 sets a better idea. Leaving the two car 150/2's to double up or run with 153's in the peaks and retain through gangway access. However I gather there is a minimum ratio of toilets to vehicles for trains used on longer runs, ergo a three car fixed formation set needs two toilets as I understand it.   

Of course! I actually meant to put 150/1.  To much red with Sunday lunch :-)

Apparently SCUD 1 and 2, have some quite significant mechanical and electrical differences to there offsprings, and thus maintainence at another depot is possible a number of the fitters at Reading are 150 trained and holding all the unique spares in one place seems sensible

What^s the capacity like comparing to a two car 165? The rush hour services on this route are rammed as it is. Be interesting to see what happens, are they planning on strengthening other TV services then? As for being on a 150 all the way from Reading to Gatwick...... no comment!

It depends on what sort of refresh might be done on the units or course, but I think the Class 150/0's have 220 or so seats in their 3-car formation, compared to 190 or so on a 2-car Class 165.  So there would be a net gain in seating on the route.

From what I can gather else where the bogies are now standard and the alternators are now as per 150/2. The wiring diagrams are different for each set though due to one having Cummins 855's and one having Rolls Royce Eagle engines as built. Theye were also used as test beds for 158 traction equipment as well if I remember correctly.

Friday 21/10 5Z42 12+29 Exeter to Newton Heath formed of 2 X 142.     Believed to be 029 and 064 but don't quote me on those numbers

Will the 150/1 be allocated to EX in due course, perhaps when the Cascade is complete which should be virtually at any time now.   I have seen posts elsewhere which I never regard as definite, unless my judgement tells me so, that 2 X 150/1s will remain allocated to SPM.     I find this strange as it means splitting the Fleet instead of concentrating them all ay one Depot just for the sake of 2.      If correct, I would assume they would be 121 and 127 which were not part of the Cascade having been with FGW for a time.     150202 and 150216 would be allocated to SPM.

Confirmation that two of the seven have departed would be great news.

Out of interest does anyone know which route they take and who (which operator) drives them?

TJ

reading to gatwick is less time than penzance to plymouth....let alone Penzance to Bristol services we the 150s on!

I forgot how some of you travel on them for such long services sorry.

The fact they want to run them so close to the depot does concern me, as they cant have much faith!

but on the plus side, least they are trying.

As stated earlier in the thread, it's got nothing to do with the proximity of the depot, but the fact they are not suitable for Driver Only Operation, which precludes them from most of the other LTV routes, and the other bonus is that the Basingstoke route is operated by 2 units which form a simple, self-contained shuttle service, with drivers and guards that are only supplied from one depot, so training costs would be as little as possible.

Maybe nothing will come of this, but it's an interesting idea.

In the 1980s tripled up 150s were used on Scarborough-York-Leeds-Manchester-Chester-Holyhead services.

Reading-Gatwick Airport is shorter than some Pacer operated services never mind 150 operated services.

Via Lickey, Landor St, Derby, Hope Valley and GuideBridge.    Detailed timings on The Messroon Forum

Has anybody got any sighting reports recently of "Alien" livered 150/1s in far away places.   Or perhaps of 150202 and to confirm it's livery.

Do not Redhill guards also have some duties on Reading to Basingstoke services?

No - it's logical to keep the oddball units on a line that's close to the depot whatever their MTBFs (Mean Time Between Failure)s are - i.e. faith or not. If a unit that was different to the rest of the "pack" were to require attention (even rarely) a long way from home, it would potentially mean a long trip for one of the handful of people who knew about it, whereas a failure of a regular unit at a far outpost wouldn't be so much of a problem - chance would be that one of the local fitters out there would know what to do. 

This has been thought through rather carefully, and seems a sensible way to add some extra capacity onto the line in question and at the same time release capacity for use elsewhere. Good heavens - we could do with those extra carriages on the TransWilts where 600 people have said they want to use the line to commute to their place of work, and of course there are many other contenders where they could be used to relieve overcrowding ... it looks like they'll get them as existing customers can shout louder than potential customers, even though the impact on each individual user would be far greater on the TransWilts.

No, I don't think so.

Graham makes a very valid point about how those Class 150/1's could be used to provide the enhanced TransWilts service he is so interested in, but I guess the obvious answer is that something has to be done to relieve overcrowding on a network that, according to the Dft's latest (highly subjective) figures, has the 10 worst overcrowded services in/out of London each day.  It's such a pity that adequate carriages aren't available to supply everyone's needs.

I cant really see much happening with the TransWilts service  til FGW get more DMU's which isnt likely to happen til at least 2016 whan the class 165/166's are displaced by the class 319's from Thameslink.

The only other possible ways to get more trains to worr the route is for FGW to get those 11  4-carriage  dmu's which were planned for the Cardiff - Portsmouth Hbr route to displace the class 158's or hope GOCO can start up running some service soon.

Either that or bring back the loco hauled sets for the Cardiff - Taunton route to free up a class 150/158.

Its a shame that a better service can't be offered for this route at the moment. I did eventually manage to travel the route from Swindon to Trowbridge before getting a cardiff train a few weeks ago and the train (a class 150) was very well full of passengers, some of whom had come off the HST from London Paddington/Reading. This just goes to show what could happen if more trains are run along the route.

I think if GOCO can get a service up and running with some suitably timed peak hour services to/from Swindon they could do well in terms of passenger numbers etc.

I just cannot see why you keep flogging this dead horse.  The proposal is DEAD, the ITT was ripped up the day the last government announced the NW and GW electrification projects.  It isn't on the back burner, it isn't even down behind the cooker, and it isn't in the room...


The LHCS was a temporary solution until the 15 x 150s arrived.  It was over and done with once the 6 units arrived from LO.  They won't be coming back - because they are significantly more expensive to operate than DMUs.

Paul

150202 was sighted at Plymouth's platform 3, a week ago. It is in Central Trains lime green livery - without the white 'Cs' at each end. The interior is the original 2+3 seating, complete with orange doors and 'BREL, Trainmakers for the World' lettering on the door steps.

L

The basingstoke & Gatwick turns are covered by the same teams swapping turns - Union rules mean only so many Basigstoke turns can be done before the crews have to move to other work. Boredom sets in apparently, and that's a safety worry. So they go off & do a GTW turn...and that crew replaces them. Not every turn, but a fair number

Yes I know that what I meant was it's a shame the government scrapped it the same with the loco hauled set's.

I suspect FGW will be waiting for a while to get more dmu's now that thameslink 's new stock is being delayed adding to the fact that the class 319's are also needed up in the north west to work teh routes that are currently being electrified.

Perhaps the government could look at  ordering additional class 377's like they are doing with southern to  work the routes in the north west so that more of   the class 319's can  come to FGW although they would needd to do some more electrification.

There does not seem to be overxrowding on the Trans Wilts route.    There are not enough trains and at suitable times, unfortunately.



_{Edit note: Quote marks fixed. CfN}

I'm just curious that this could be a tactic from FGW if they win the franchise. If they allocated all the 150/1s to Reading after electrification there should be enough units to cover all the unelectrified branches. The depot concentrates on one diesel traction. All the turbos go west. They are DOO capable units now, some just need CSR fitted but they will all have GSMR in the future so no problem. Only downside is branches will lose the through services which I suspect will happen anyway after electrification.

Thanks for your thought-provoking observations, Devon Donkey - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  :)

 Slightly off topic, But I have been reading the latest issue of rail magazine which i purchased in Tesco  at 06:00 this morning. There is an article on  page 8 concerning FGW.

Seem that there may be a chance that FGW will receive new emu's to work electrified services around Reading etc to allow more class 319's to go to Northern with the remaining units being used by FGW around Bristol, Cardiff.

Also the article states that a proportion of scotrails class 170's will become available around 2015-2016 when  the Edinburgh - Glasgow electrification is completed.

Perhaps a possibility that whoever gets the next GW franchise could try to get some of these units?

Does it mention any more details? 

There's two ways I can think of that'll use extra 319s at Northern:
1. Electrify North TPE and use 319s on the local services that will switch to EMU as a result of that electrification.
2. Cascade the Northern 323s to LM and use the 319s as replacement.

However, doing one of the above would seem to leave Northern with an excess of 319s, while doing both of the above would leave them short of EMUs.

If I'm honest it would seem to make more sense to order new EMUs for Northern and use the 319s for Thames Valley and the Valley Lines (assuming electrification is approved.)  The North West is set to have OHE ready long before the 319s are available to cascade, never mind having them fully refurbished before being put in to service as was supposed to happen.  Delaying the OHE in the North West would in turn delay Thames Valley electrification.

I do  share the idea that Northern would be better getting new units especillay since the thameslink order has been delayed.

Perhaps  ordering more class 377's on the back of the order Southern are due to put in?

That should allow more 319's to FGW, perhaps also allowings ome to go to ATW to work Maesteg - Ebbw Vale services etc if those routes are wired as part of the valley lines electrification.

That should enable the WG to have a smaller order for brand new emu's for thew core valley lines service's to Treherbert, Rhymney, Merthyr Tydfil,Penarth etc.

150122 now with FGW.    I have not been able to keep tabs on the arrivals recently due to thick and fast arrivals so I am not sure how many still to come.    Should be almost there.

Anyone heard, if FGW are getting those 2 3-carriage class 150's for the Reading - Bassingstoke route?

It seems to have gone quiet, since they trialed that class 150 on the route last week.

Whatever gave you the impression such a lease could be sorted out in a week?   

These things take many months normally - this side of Christmas would be quite incredible...

Paul

Indeed ... but then the trial wouldn't have been the first step in exploring what could be done along those line, no would it.  The seed of an idea was probably planted in the spring ;)

There would be question of where they would be maintained.    Hardly, Reading I should think which would mean ECS Movements to and from PM

Haven't we been here before somewhere else in the thread...? Contrary to popular belief, Reading can and has done heavy maintenance on Sprinter/Pacer units on occasion so there seems to be no reason why it couldn't look after a pair of 150s.

Silly me.  Of course it has been.    I have seen mention on so many Forums but did not immediately recollect seeing posts on this one

This may possibly be of interest to some on here: http://www.londonmidland.com/your-journey/farewell-150/

And an absolute bargain at ^20 for a days trundling around the Midlands in 150001 + another unspecified Class 150. The special train will also be making a return trip on the Severn Valley Railway.

Tickets: http://www.svr.co.uk/TicketOffice.aspx
Schedule: http://www.londonmidland.com/download/57248.1/farewell-150-times/

Nice idea and I'm sure it will sell well, especially at a bargain price like that. Have to say though after the briefest of hops on a LM 150 last week I wouldn't be overly keen on the idea of spending most of a day on one of them!!

Whereas the 150s being cascaded to fgw spend about a week at PM being looked over and given Exam to put on FGW Exam schedule,  Northern are putting those that have arrived there straight into traffic

Northern only schedule to use two of them on a daily basis at present and they have to really because they've been made to release 2 of their 156s to EMT.  Northern don't seem to have been allowed the flexibility that FGW have of choosing when they feel ready to release stock.

From the numbers given on another forum it looks like FGW have had their full allocation of LM 150s now.  Apparently LM have 9 x 2 car 150s left to cascade and Northern have received 9 out of the 18 expected, which would suggest the remaining 9 are Northern's.  (LM are retaining 3 x 2 car 150s.)

Not all have yet come.   Outstanding are 150104 150106 150124 160125 and 150/2 150216.   Unless and arrivals have slipped my net.

For the record phile, I agree with what you have posted and not what has been posted on another forum. I did read somewhere that 104 and 216 were due to have been delivered a week or so ago but I never got confirmation that this had happened though.

Does anyone know what livery the newly received 150/2s will wear eventually, will it be the local lines or the 150/1 plain blue livery?

It looks like there has been some confusion on the thread I was working off but with subsequent replies and common sense I've worked it out now.

Northern now have the following: 150110, 150111, 150113, 150114, 150204, 150210, 150214, 150226, 150132, 150103, 150116 and 150117 
Total = 12.  6 units left to transfer.

LM still have the following in service: 150001, 150012, 150015, 150018, 150019, 150105, 150107, 150109, 150124 and 150125.  150001 is excluded from the cascade so after reforming the other 3 car units they have 11 units left. 

Two of those 11 are for FGW - 150124 and 150125.  The other units you mention have apparently been transferred.

almost certainly plain blue livery as read somewhere local lines livery is obsolete

FGW have been doing gauging tests with an ex.London Underground class 150 (150 130) DMU betwenn Reading and Basingstoke because they want to free up some Network Turbo units.

Already documented on the 150 Cascade thread on the "Across the West" Board as far back as far back as Oct 16th

...into which I have now merged the nascent thread from the Reading/Basingstoke board.

159124 at Tyseley this morning and 150125 out working for LM

The west of England super sprinters must be breading :-) I take it you mean 150124

Sorry, yes 150124.  Typing error unfortunately failed to check

According to GEMINI FGW have now started re-forming the 2 Coach 158s:-into 3 Car Sets

158960 - Formed of 57747 52769 57769
158961   Formed of 52749 52767 57767

158962 still to be formed

From the Bath Chronicle (http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/story-13810308-detail/story.html):

The above must be referring to the additional 153s FGW have got from LM.

That doesn't necessarily follow, the two extra 150s (ie the 10th and 11th units) are also additional to the original 15 LO/LM transfers.

(As a side point, I hear the SWT 158 daily hire is still planned for in the December timetable...)

Paul

Understand 150106 expected from Tyseley in middle of week but that 150124 and 150125 may not come until the last minute before the new Timetable in December.
Has anybody seen any services being worked by 3 coach 158s that were not previously worked by them.

I can reply to my own question.   I travelled on 12 48 Paignton to Cardiff today formed by a 3 Coach 158 and which had previously been worked by a 158 (2 Coach) + 153.    This would be an obvious Diagram for a 158 (3 Car).

I would wait several days before making that a definite anwer, to be honest...

We had all sorts of stock working that train, from 3 car 158s, to 158+150, or double 150.  Usually is a 158+153, but I have the feeling that most of the times in a way depends on what's available at SPM.

Now, I would say that a 3 car 158 has been a bit more common lately...

5Z74 Tyseley to St Phillips Marsh today with 150124.   Looks like that 150106 will be held back with 150125.   Not quite enough 172s yet for full programme, hence the reason.

Although not 100% certain if the Diagram many quotes say diagrammed 158 (2 Coach)  + 153.   This would be a 3 Car swap, the 153 being available for deployment elsewhere

106 was meant to go bristol today, obviously LM keeping hold of it for a while.

It appears 150124 came instead, with 150106 and 150125 staying until all 172s delivered to LM.  There were 3 outstanding at the weekend.  The ones outstanding were the ones which were sent to enable Depot training to commence at Tyseley before the seats had been fitted and they are at Litchurch lane now for the fitting.  Further to 50124 now reported to have been at Tyseley this morning so I think I'm giving up until something more definite known instead of conflicting reports.

Movement x Tyseley last week did not take place but 124 should have arrived today.     !50106 and 150125 remaining at moment, 1 to cover for one remaining with LM to receive a new engine but which should arrive by mid December and the other to remain temp due to 2 x 172 at Bombardier waiting parts.
There is a new thread today, I notice, about extra carriages following DFT announcement.    The main thing is that the Prototype 150s WILL be coming for the Reading to Basingstoke.    150209 which is a bit of a strange character formed of 2 middle cars but are both toiletless.    They should be used similarly to make 150121 and 150127 (the original FGW 150/1s) into 3 Car Sets.     Until 209 has been refurbidhed though, it is repote until they are reforbished.d that each coach will work with a 153 similar to 153399 which e had due to fire damage to a coach of 150221.
  The Basingstke Sets and 150209 are currently at Eastleigh having been sent there originally by DFT for Storage.  No additional Units that have been allocated are for increasing the Trans Wilts service.   I was hoping that the pressure for the required improvemnt would have been kept up to send a message to DFT and FGW that the issue was not going to go away.

Just picked this up from UK railforums:

150002 & 150209 are due to leave Eastleigh (Dep 11:22) today (Wednesday) as 5z69  to St Phillips Marsh arriving @ 13:40 .

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=882839#post882839

150002 (? Basingstoke) and the looless 150209 arrived from LM today.  Not direct nut from Eastleigh where they originally went due to DFT proposing Store originally.   150001 still at Tyseley.

In summary, this thread states they've taken on the following in addition to the 150/0s and the toilet less 150/2 vehicles:

150108
150126
150101
150102
150122
150104
150106
150124
150125

150202
150216

Edited because numbers do actually up, they didn't seem to at first.

Just to try and keep the thread of thesee important developments alive, 150001 and 150106 were expected this weekend but the movement did not take place.   I have been expecting posts on sightings of the new incumbents, especially in Devon following the departure of the 142s.   Are 143s still working in Bristol area as a result ?

Well, I'm missing the 143s on the Severn Beach Line, although I may just have been unlucky in recent weeks! Last trip was a 150/2.

Saw 150104 doing Bristol Parkway - Weston Super Mare on Wednesday.

Well, unless my eyes deceived me, I saw the front of a 150 and two 153s working towards Bristol at Yatton last Wednesday?  ::)

Your more than welcome to have the things back  ;)

So does the 150's  (whichever variants they are, hopefully 3 car)  mean the end of 1st class on Basingstoke - Reading?

Not unless XC alter their trains.   

But seriously, there's no reason 150s couldn't be altered to have a First Class section, especially if it was a 'Southern' style First where the only difference to the adjacent standard class is the antimaccasars...

Paul

And the two inward facing seats.  It's worth paying the extra just to seat in these...

150001 and 150126 moved this weekend from.   Pretty sure that is now the completed transfer.    SWT 158 no longer working the afternoon Brighton.

Is that 150126 correct, you mentioned 150001 and 150106 being outstanding a few posts back?

Paul

Sorry. Misprint failed to check.  150106 correct

It is.

150001 and 150126 still at Tyseley today.   No driver available to move.   LM cannot use otherwise they would have to pay hire charges now !!!

swt 158 still on hire, but reverted back to it's former Gol;den Valley Diagram.   According to SWT Carriage Workings until December next year !!!   Still if this can be agreed between the 2 Companies even taking into accouint hire charges. FGW have an extra Unit unobtainable through DaFT

back to the reading- bsk route... if its dedicated units and there is enough demand fgw may well see it as viable to put it some first class seating 

That might be why the 07.23 Warminster Malvern was only 2 car today, was full and standing from Trowbridge. It normally had the SWT 158 with it.

I am not 100% certain on this one but perhaps the 07 23 Warminster should now be a 3 Coach formation following the forming of 158960 and 158961.   Perhaps a member from within could confirm.

Here is a table I've compiled of the strengthened services operating through Bristol Temple Meads as from 12th December. This information has be gleaned from another rail forum (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=898887&postcount=26) and tidied up by me. The original source for the info was from FGW's Director of Communications and appeared to have some time errors which I've fixed based on current Journey Planner info.

I've no idea of the the actual TOPS numbers for the units though. They would be liable to regular change anyway.


Looking at those timings its obvious some other services will also be strengthened. The service out to Severn Beach that forms the inbound 0720 will logically also have 3 carriages.

I also can't see that the return working of the 1700 Cardiff - Taunton is likely to leave a carriage behind at Taunton.

I make no claims to the 100% accuracy of the table above.

I hope that we are not going to see another Dec 2006 scenario as a result of the Cascade.    I believe that the 07 23 Warminster to Great Malvern mentioned earlier was for med by 158960 but with a Carriage missing, i.e.
2       08 23 Portsnouth Harbour to Cardiff today observed with 2 coaches only (158766)
 

How? The Dec 2006 problems were caused by the withdrawal and storage of a large amount of rolling stock. I'm really not sure how you propose that FGW will achieve a similar result with a net increase in vehicles.  ???

Day to day availabity issue, probably.

158950 this morning.

Not my favorite service due to the innordinate amount of time it sits in BRI for, so any further info on this diagram will be quite limited.

I should just like to know if 07 23 Warminster is now booked a 3 Car 158 or not following the formation of 158960 and 158961 as it appears to have created some controversy.   Anybody got the answer, please ?   Thanks in anticipation

Surely that would rely on this newly formed 3 car Class 158 always being diagrammed on that particular service?

Should the question not be whether the 0723 from Warminster is be a 3 car service regardless of the stock used?

To answer that I can only refer you to the table upthread, where the 0723 from Warminster is not included in the list of strengthened services. Maybe it's one that FGW should've considered strengthening. I don't know, not having travelled on it. You can of course ask FGW.

It should be remembered that rolling stock provision on a particular service is always going to be at the mercy of what is and isn't available on a particular day. That holds true even in the case of the services FGW have said are to be strengthened.

Thanks.    Seems strange though to have been reduced a previous 4 coach well loaded train.

On furthet reflection, even if Units are allocated on the day according to availability, the 3 Coach and 2 Coach 158s are diagrammed separately to services so that is why I have been wondering about the actual diagram itself.     Or just a "clanger"  in reducing the formation as has been indicated.

The 0723 goes on to form the 1051 Great Malvern - Brighton hence the formation being 3-cars in order to strengthen the  Brighton service.


There are no 2-car 158 diagrams anymore as they should all have been 3cars by now.

The 0723 may be a coach short but there are other services around the same time that are now a lot bigger.

The 07:11 Gloucester to Swindon, now 3 carriages.  150 + 153, I believe.

Question - what happens to the second unit from Swindon - does it strengthen the Stroud Valley all day, or get taken off somewhere to come back into play in the evening peak?

If it sits in Swindon all day then perhaps it could be used to provide a  regular service between Swindon & Westbury  providing there are paths etc available.

Nothing sits in Swindon , and not strictly true 2O00 is diagrammed 2 car 158 utilising the SWT Hired set

That doesn't tally with the info provided by FGW regarding strengthened services from 12th December.

Also, hasn't the SWT 158 returned to them?

Agreed nothing sits at Swindon.   But I'm a bit confused here.

The 07:04 Westbury to Swindon - getting there at 07:48 and continues to Cheltenham.  Is that 2O00, or have things (and the hired SWT set's disposition) changed?

The 07:11 Gloucester to Swindon (via Chippenham) gets to Swindon at 09:03. This is the one I was asking about  ... surely not the SWT set?  It's reported earlier in this thread as 3 cars now, and has been running as 150 + 153, I understand.  It then forms the 09:54 to Cheltenham, getting there at 11:05.  I thought it came back at 12:01 from Cheltenham, into Swindon again (13:04 to 13:54), but is it still 3 cars at that point?  Seems an awful lot of standing time too if I have this right??

Sorry - don't have the train numbers - help in sorting out the confusion would be appreciated.  Thanks.

The unit departs as a three coach set up towards Gloucester just before 10am, with, it would appear the 153 locked out of use. When it returns to Swindon it's only the 150. The SWT set is the unit that forms the alternate workings, and so is not relevant to graham's question. 

The 153 is required to strengthen Gloucester - Bristol aspect of the Gloucester - Swindon service.

It is detached at Gloucester upon arrival to then attach to the 1442 Gloucester - Westbury which arrives in Gloucester as a single 153 from Bristol. This is due to 11:10 Weymouth - Gloucester being split into a Weymouth-Bristol service and a Bristol - Gloucester service in order to improve performance. The 11:10 is a notorious poor performer.

There really is an obsession involving Melksham isn't there?!?!

Where's Melksham?  :P

Hardly surprising because of the tight turn around at Weymouth of the previous service arriving at 11.03. You only have to have to busy service picking up many day trippers heading to Weymouth and it starts to lose time, especially if operated by a 158/153 where entry/exit isn't as fast as a 150.

So there should be to remind DaFT and FGW that the matter will not go away

_{Edited to disentangle and truncate quote for clarity}

Thanks very much for your reply.
Phil

Let me give a bit of background as to why I asked.

Those of us who are concerned that the current TransWilts service is too sparse to be fit for purpose have often looked at (and continue to look at) units parked up for 35 minutes in every 120, at Cheltenham, 70 minutes in every 120 at Swindon, and during the day between peaks at Westbury and various other places.  We've also looked at hourly services in our area where - suddenly in the middle of the day - an extra train runs 10 minutes behind the hourly service, calling at just one other station, and we've looked at some strange sorties by trains into areas served predominantly by other franchises - running so close to those other trains at times that we wonder at the minimum headway that the signals must provide there!

We do this so that we can understand.  To help us better ask sensible questions, and to make good suggestions as to where a small change could make a big difference. And indeed I have three examples that I can immediatey think of where such suggestions have been taken up, or perhaps where a similar though has come to the professionals and the result has been that what we may have hoped for - small things thus far - have happened.

My question about the extra 153 that's just been added to the service to Swindon was to help us understand the disposition of an extra train that's possibly in the area for part of the day - and many thanks, fatcontroller, for providing that information.  We now know it sits at Gloucester for 232 minutes.  It's another piece in our jigsaw of understanding.  Alas - I'm not sure if it will lead to any useful suggestions, or simply be a blind alley that's examined and then found to be blind ... let's see ...

If the 153 formed an 09:15 service from Swindon to Salisbury, then a 10:30 Salisbury to Swindon, it could carry on with the 11:54 to Gloucester and be in place there in excellent time for it's 14:22 onward service. BUT there are multiple concerns there.  Firstly, would such an extra service alone tip the balance from a service that's run at such a low level, and such strange times, that it fails to attract reasonable custom into one which naturally grows?  I personally would guess that at least an equivalent service would be needed late afternoon to tip the balance.  Secondly, there are more complex issues to look at on the Westbury / Salisbury 'leg' - a danger of doubling up in exactly the same way I have described above as being a potential waste of resources, and thus perhaps an opportunity to sort out something more radical there.

If the 153 dettached from the Gloucester - Swindon train at Bristol, Bath or Chippenham and ran via Westbury or Warminster (reverse) to Swindon ... but then what about route and platform capacities along the way?  And we've still not quite tipped the balance, or have we?  For we have provided an arrival in Swindon at around 10 a.m., which when linked with the 18:44 Swindon to Southampton provides an 8.75 hour day from Warminster (perhaps), Dilton Marsh (perhaps) Westbury, Trowbridge and Melksham to Swindon (in contrast to current 11 hour offering) and would provide a 9.25 hour day from the same stations to Chippenham (in contrast to the current 11.5 hour day)

If ... - yes - there are other suggestions too.  Experience tells me that for every 9 blind alleys, there may be one that works. Of course, I'm an amateur who's not really equipped to know which is which - but we've seen various proofs over the years that from apparently fully utilised resources a little extra can be squeezed and that the little extra can have a dramatic effect.  19:37, Sunday, Westbury to Swindon.  Average passengers - 200 when there's an 08:20 Swindon to Westbury on Sunday morning, 20 when the 08:20 Swindon to Westbury does not run. And the 08:20 is use of a set that would otherwise be parked in the siding at that time.

There is, indeed, a natural tendency for many of us to look at the TransWilts line more strongly than others.  The TransWilts 'service' is, frankly, inappropriate for the needs of the corridor served unlike other services in the area.  So it needs for discussion and attention. 

Well said Grahame, this is almost exactly the reason I'm interested to find out if the 153 that sits at Swansea for much of the day at the moment is guaranteed to be there. If it is, it could be used to plug the 5hr afternoon gap in Fishguard's, otherwise finally approaching useful, service.

It would have to be funded.   Doubtful if it would get to Fishguard and back when pathing has to be considered especially with SLW stretch through Gowerton.

Gentle reminder folks: we already have an existing thread dealing with services in south west Wales.

Please can we keep this one specific to the cascade of 150 units to FGW that has recently occurred and its specific implications please? Thanks.

The problem that exists in Swindon is that the platforms are not permissible for passenger trains; therefore your "new" 1030 Salisbury - Swindon would need to arrive onto a different platform (1 or 3) and then shunt empty into the bay to attach to the 11:54. I don't know whether there is sufficient time or there is a sufficient gap to allow the shunt to take place with other services around.

I am really sorry fatcontroller - please don't be offended but I don't understand this comment... please could you explain for a simpleton like me.  Thanks

Yes please do explain in my experience passenger trains stop at the platforms all the time are they breaking the rules? Lets face there would not be much point if they didn't.

Permissible working refers to a signalling practice that allows two trains into one platform at the same time. One of the most basic tenets of signalling is that the line is divided into "sections", and that each section must never contain more than one train. However, to allow two short trains to use one platform at the same time (as would happen in the case of a service that couples together or divides for example) there are special signalling arrangments in place, which are known as permissive working.

Disclaimer - I'm not a signaller and that is a very basic summary, so apologies for any factual faux pas or missing information!

Ah ... I think I may have heard that somewhere before - thanks for the reminder though.  And that's why we would also have issues with a TransWilts service arriving and leaving again in the bay while a Stroud Valley unit snoozes on the buffers between trips to Cheltenham.  I'm taking it that the issue isn't easily solved, but would rather be a resignalling issue?

Seriously, there are also sorts of considerations on this one at / south of Westbury. I suspect it could replace the mid morning WSB - WMN shuttles ... with something that would be rather busier with passengers ( = more revenue  :D )

Sorry for not making myself clear in the first place but Inspector Blakey has hit the nail on the head.
It is exactly the point that a (short) passenger train can not come into a platform with another train already in it.

The practice is different with regards to a train not in service and Swindow would require modified signalling in order to allow permissive working with passenger trains in the same way that the practice is allowed in places such as Bristol TM.

Understand 150121 is now having one of the 209 vehicles inserted at PM to form 3 Car.   I don't know if 209 (the 2 odd 57  vehicles) has been given FGW livery yet or not otherwise 121 will look rather odd.    Could be renumbered 150021 (similar to the LM ones which had been formed into 3 Car Sets after splitting 150/2s) but best wait and see on this one unless anybody is in a position to confirm now.   There were stories that the 209 vehicles would be put with a 153 (similar to 150399 after damage to one of 150221 vehicles earlier this year) until refreshed but this would look more odd still, I think.

Maybe off thread of Cascade but refers to issue that has arisen within the thread.   Many members may recall when a Unit collided rather with the rear onother train (Inter-City at the time) at Newton Abbot in the late 90s.    Railtrack were in operation at the time and they commissioned a review at all locations where permissive working applied.  A member of the team told me that they had a target of XXX locations to come up with whether it was considered a safe practice or not.  One such location where  permissive working had to be withdrawn was Cardiff Queen St.   Earlier in the nineties, but still in BR Days, a lot of money and possession time was spent in converting Platform 3 from a Bay into a through road and within the signalling alterations required, provision was made to introduce permissive working.   As this was in BR Days there was no body to try and claim the costs back from Railtrack on this abolition.

I am just trying to tidy up a few queries and would appreciate confirmation of the following:

1) Have both 150001 & 150002 reached FGW?
2) Have all the 150/1s now reached FGW?
3) Has 150209 been split and if so to which units have the individual cars been added?
4) Have all the 158 2 car units been converted into 3 car and if so what has happened to 763, 766 and 798?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

TJ

151 121 was still a 2 car on thursday.

Nothing would have happened with 158798 which is a "true" 3 Coach 158 and not a Set which has ben made up by splitting.



Edit note: Quote marks fixed. CfN.  :-X

Yes, I've read that 150001 is at Barton Hill and 150002 is at Reading.

Yes.

I've not read anything to suggest that this has happened.

158763 and 158766 are still 2-car.
158798 will of course stay 3-car, it was built as such.

150216 has recently been reformed into a two car set having spent a few years separated to form 3 car sets, not sure whey they would reform it and then split up a different unit?

is that because one vehicle was damaged in the westbury de-railment though?

Thanks to everyone who replied to my earlier posting, much appreciated. My faux pas on the 158s duly noted!

One further query. Looking at the ABC on line Rail Database it indicates 150248 allocated to Cardiff, although FGW are shown as being the user. Has this unit gone temporary walkabout or is ABC wrong?

As far as I can see the DMU fleet operating out of Bristol/Exeter/ now comprises

8 x 143
17 x 150/1
19 x 150/2 (Plus 150209)
14 x 153
2 x 158 two car
1 x 158 three car original
12 x 158 three car 'conversions'
      
I have made a start at looking at seating capacities but this seems a tad of a nightmare with differences being noted between my two reference books, Colin Marsden's 2010 Rail Guide and the 2006 edition of Platform 5's combined publication. Is there an expert on such matters in the house?

TJ

Hope you don't think I am bring petty, but just to correct.
Should be 2 x 150/0   (15001 & 150002 3 Cars) and 15 x 150/1

I am always happy to get corrected but I deliberately omitted the 150/0 units as, to my mind anyway, they are not Bristol/Exeter operational units as they are intended for the Reading to Basingstoke service. The 17 x 150/1s I have noted are:

150101
150102
150104
150106
150108
150109
150121
150122
150123
150124
150125
150126
150127
150128
150129
150130
150131

If this is wrong please correct me.

TJ

I think that 150109 is still with LM. However, 150120 is missing from your list so I think your total is correct.

150120 missing from AB Rail also and this is being corrected by Ed at next update.

Sorry, I confused 150001/2 with 150101/2 so miscounted.

First for me today, having to use an umbrella 'inside' a train. The 'new' 150/1's appear to be shower proof not waterproof.  :-\

I've been rather amused, travelling on a 150 on a wet day, watching the accumulating rainwater sloshing about inside a fluorescent light fitting ...  ::) :o ;D

Get used to it! Here are the specifications of the Class 150:
*Windows don't close - making it deafening at 75mph and bonechilling in Winter
*Heating is always on - you make like the way the trains are roasty toasty at the moment when you get on, but just wait until summer!
*No A/C - open windows don't help when the train is sat in the station, sun blazing in
*Exhaust fumes dispersed into passenger saloons (this feature is only available on selected units)
*Some units cannot go above 50mph (source: CT driver when taking a cab ride)
*Toilets - don't go there (literally)
*Try patting the seats - actually don't or else you'll send a cloud of 10 year old dust all over the carriage
*Doors between carriages don't work on selected models
*Inaudible PA, no PIS
*Three versions of the West Midlands Network map visible
*Some of the safety notices are HANDWRITTEN
*It is possible to prise the doors open at 75mph I have witnessed someone else do this
*No door controls throughout train, leading to delays
*They struggle up gradients and were BANNED from the Lickey incline in the latter days of CT (due to woeful/non existent maintenance). This ban has since been lifted after Tysely gave each engine a bash with a sledgehammer.
*Despite LM's best efforts, the 10 years of CT's "no cleaning" policy left their mark!

But hey - they get people from A to B. 8)

Just out of idle curiosity on my part, Btline:


Why did you try to do that?  ???

I'm getting used to 150s on the Severn Beach Line, but still pining just a little for the 143s.  ;)

No plans to prise open the doors. Not at any speed. They don't get anywhere near 75mph anyway. Best is about 40mph down the hill through Clifton Down Tunnel toward Sea Mills.... ;D

I've amended my post to make it clear that I saw someone else (yob) prise the doors open, it wasn't me! :o

Refreshed 150126 was at Temple Meads this morning, looking very shiny in a new coat of paint.

Hope the interior smells better than some of the other refreshed 150/1's, which to me smell of disinfectant.

If they can find the seats, 2+2 would get my vote if FGW are looking to spend money on them.

Oh and roof sealant.  :)

150s are now being allocated to EX, both 150/1s and 150/2s.     As the process is still taking place best wait for the full details when complete.

The good news (for my nose) is that the interior on 150126 smells fine. However, what caught my eye were the stickers to advertise the CCTV, 'Smile you're on CCTV'!

I have recently quoted plans in regard to 150 formations, but I would ask people to ignore until after the event has actually taken place.    Plans announced previously keep changing.

I may have asked this question  myself before due to the fact that I have also seen other posts requesting the same info but with conflicting replies.   Could any member, please, say definitely if the FGW 150/1s and 150/2s have separate diagrams or are they all lumped together and just shewn as 150 Diagrams.  I am sure there is somebody out there who could confirm one way or the other to scotch the conflicting reports once and for all.   Would appreciate definite info rather than"I think".   Thanks in anticipation.

Thanks for your two recent posts, phile.  :)

I think I must point out that all of our members on this forum are here because we share your obvious interest in the railways - not because we are employed to be authoritative sources of definitive information about the niceties of the use of Class 150s in service.

If you are looking for such definitive confirmation, I'm not sure that any of our membership here (or indeed on any other similar forum) will be able to provide that, to your satisfaction.

However: you could ask the Train Operating Company the question directly?

Hello Chris
I was not trying to be authortative on purpose but must admit the post could have given that impression.     Frustration because of conflicting information on not only this Forum but others also.   A member has in in the past invited diagramming questions
As you suggest perhaps ask FGW direct.
Phil

The diagrams are separated with regards to 150/1 or 150/2.
 

Thanks very much for that Fat Controller.   Settles it at last.  Part of my fascination stems from the fact that from 1996 to 2000  I was the Unit Diagrammer for Wales and West at the time and from which Wessex followed.

The 2 odd toiletless 57 carriages (refred to as 150209) have been seen refreshed and the numbers 150121 and 150127 painted on them.   So we know what we can expect to seen soon although I thought they would become 150021 and 150027.
Personally I cant fathom out yet what they would become as 1 coach is 52xxx and another 57xxx.  So what about the third vehicle.

Have since the last thought of why not compare with 150001 and 150002 numbering.
The 3 vehicles in each unit are numbered 55xxx similar to Pacers.

The two vehicles will retain their own numbers, 57209 and 57212.
They are being inserted into 150121 and 150127.

The new unit numbers will be........ 150121 and 150127.

The set numbers will not be changing.

Sounds a sensible idea, as this would provide an option of transposing if the need were to arise similar to he flexibilty with the 3 Coach 158s although these are formed differently, i.e the odd carriage attached on end rather than in the middle as in the 150 situation.

would have made more sense to re-number the sets as 021 and 027 so that they show up as 3 car units for diagraming purposes, they wont be able to go to certain places as 3 car sets, Looe and Gunnislake spring to mind, I know that they are intended to stay in the Bristol area but anything is possible!

There are paperwork implications if the units are renumbered to 1500xx.
This is why they are staying as 150/1's.

Anything is only possible if you make it happen - it's not worth the hassle from the bosses to start messing about with where they go!

150127 out and about this week as 3 Car with 57209 formed as Centre Car.
Believe 121 will be out next week with the other 57212 as Centre Car.   150127 seen working 08 00 Cardidd to Paignton yesterday.   Seems they will be usefil for deputising for 3 Coach 158s.   Wonder how soon before one reaches Portsmouth Harbour

They will have their own diagrams starting Monday - they will be the new "LHCS" working to pretty much the same diagrams.

Thanks for that info.  Originally the Severn Beach line being quoted as a candidate.    How the position has changed obver time.
I would assume that the 3 Coach Paignton 158 will now be released for alternative work.

On permanent 4 car Pompey/Cardiff's please.  :-* :-* :-*

Noting on other threads members concerns about obtaining freeby nibbles in First Class, there are other areas of FGW land where it would be nice if the advertised trolley service could actually board the train.  >:( >:(

And a trolley service on the Portsmouth Saturday afternoons and Sundays.     Passengers have not "shut down" and are still travelling sometimes in large numbers.
I recall when FGW published catering catering shortcomings on their websie, one could see that a trolley was not available on the afternoon Brighton virtually NEVER

Here are the diagrams for the FGW  3 carriage class 150's basicly the same as teh old loco hauled diagrams:

diag 451 Sx

ecs to Taunton
07.36 Parkway
09.12 WSM
ecs Taunton
11.04 Cardiff
14.00 Taunton
16.17 Cardiff
19.00 Taunton
22.45 Bristol TM

diag 451 So
spare

diag 452 sx

ecs to Cardiff
08.00 Paignton
12.48 Cardiff
17.00 Taunton
19.10 Bristol Tm

diag 452 so
06.48 Bristol WSM
07.40 Cardiff
10.00 Taunton
12.07 Cardiff
15.00 Taunton
17.07 Cardiff
xxxx Bristol


I had these emailed to me a little while ago so I apoligise if there are any error's

Just picked up a customer off the 19:53 Melksham to Swindon.   150127 - 3 cars, or did my eyes deceive me?

P.S.  Could do with it that long all summer if we can have our trial Sunday morning train back on a permanent basis.

Reported in service as 3 car in post #430...

Paul

Does 452 (sx) not work 06 19 Bristol TM to Cardiff ?    Is 07 36 Taunton ECS from Bristol or Exeter ?   

diag 451 Sx

ecs  Bristol to Taunton
07.36  Taunton - Bristol Parkway
09.12  Bristol Parkway - WSM

ecs  WSM - Taunton

11.04 Taunton - Cardiff
14.00 Cardiff -Taunton
16.17  Taunton - Cardiff
19.00 Cardiff -Taunton
22.45 Taunton - Bristol TM (Not too sure about this 1 as the 19:00 arrives into Taunton at about 21:05)

diag 451 So

spare

diag 452 sx

ecs to Cardiff (Should be an 06:19 Bristol - Cardiff service)
08.00 Cardiff - Paignton
12.48 Paignton - Cardiff
17.00 Cardiff -Taunton
19.10 Taunton - Bristol Tm

diag 452 so

06.48 Bristol - WSM
07.40 WSM -Cardiff
10.00 Cardiff -Taunton
12.07 Taunton - Cardiff
15.00 Cardiff -Taunton
17.07 Taunton - Cardiff

xxxx Bristol


I hope I have cleared things up. I am not  sure what is happening with the 06:19 Bristol TM - Cardiff service

It has worked the 08 00 Cardiff to Paignton for years, even in the LHCS days.

With 150202 (now reformed) and 150216 going in for refreshing, there are no LM/Central liveried 150s now left in service

153333 at Wolverton for refurbishing and 325 should follow soon.   Everything will then be in FGW livery

Just a small observation on 150125, it would appear FGW are going increasingly Green with the fitting of LED replacements for florescents.

First time I've seen them in action.

It's a trial unit I believe.

Good idea, LED technology (particularly with white colour rendering) is improving and becoming affordable, but due to the high initial costs, where is the incentive for this when the franchise is due shortly and FGW don't 'pay' for the internal lighting as the power is generated internally rather than metered? There is the maintenance cost and procurement of lamps I suppose but I can't see the payback here? Any input on why?

Aren't the saloon lights on HSTs (source of whining ad nauseam about how they're far too bright) also LED-based?

The pay back is in the reduced fuel costs, since it is burning fuel that generates the electricity. Whilst the saving won't be that great it probably all adds up. I also understand that many of the units lack sufficient power for the train, hence why some 150/2s have lights disabled in the saloon.

And LED lights last for ages so once installed maintenance costs are minimal.