Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 22:35 28 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
* Easter getaways hit by travel disruption
- Where Baltimore bridge investigation goes now
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
19:35 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
22:25 Bedwyn to Newbury
22:30 Gatwick Airport to Reading
22:47 Newbury to Bedwyn
Short Run
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
22:10 Severn Beach to Bristol Temple Meads
23:04 Reading to Bedwyn
23:17 Bedwyn to Reading
Delayed
19:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:30 Gatwick Airport to Reading
21:45 Penzance to London Paddington
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 22:48:10 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[104] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[103] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[78] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[56] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Return of the BRUTE?
[25] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: New type of train needed for secondary routes ?  (Read 43594 times)
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2013, 23:24:37 »

Basically IMO (in my opinion) we are short of all types particularly for strengthening trains where coupling restrictions mean you need similar type units. Although it gets complicated when teh Chiltern 172s can't coupke with the LOREL ones.

I would suggest it's really the middle ones we need for the longer RE (Religious Education) type journies. With electrifcation there will be lots of current uniis spare the Turbos the 185 from Trans Pennine etc to cascade down.

My suggestion of an ED loco hauled set for these services is based on the fact provided the exisitng electrification programme keeps going there will be lots of routes with large portions of wire.



 
Logged
Network SouthEast
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 492



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2013, 00:03:49 »

Basically IMO (in my opinion) we are short of all types particularly for strengthening trains where coupling restrictions mean you need similar type units. Although it gets complicated when teh Chiltern 172s can't coupke with the LOREL ones.
Yes they can be coupled together. The LOROL (London Overground Railway Operations Ltd) 172s are compatible with Chiltern 172s... along with 165 and 166s!
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2013, 14:17:46 »

I don't think they are - they *can* pair with Chiltern 165s/168s - although there's little point with 165s owing to different top speeds. But making them compatible to run over the tube lines on the Met means that LOROL (London Overground Railway Operations Ltd) can't borrow them.
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2013, 15:23:12 »

IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the 172s cannot operate on the Met without being 'boxed in' between other tripcock fitted units - and because they'd then be too long for the platforms that Chiltern use it isn't ever planned to be done in service.

Even the relatively small number of Chiltern/LOROL (London Overground Railway Operations Ltd) DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit) lead to all sorts of odd permutations regarding mutual compatibility.

Paul
Logged
swrural
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 647


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2013, 15:29:00 »

I'll bet our host would love to see one of the units you describe at Melksham!!!

Chance would be a fine thing, but meanwhile, I do like 8F's push-pull flexibility ideas and the ability to run under the wires.  This solution is used a lot on secondary routes on the mainland and could be useful for coping with strengthening in the peaks and 'footex' and the like.
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2013, 23:41:49 »

So we have three sorts of units really:
I'd say five or six:

  • 1. INTERCITY (eg. IC125, IC225, Class 390)
  • 2. Regional Express (classes 159, 158, 175, 444 (ish) and 5-WES (no eg. there, I think that's about it)
  • 3. Rural (eg. classes 156 and 153) (possibly long-distance like regional express, but with lower linespeeds, smaller populations served and perhaps more stations to call at)
  • 4. Outer-suburban (eg. classes 450/350, 377, 172)
  • 5. Inner-suburban/branch (eg. classes 150, 378, 376, 143)
The possible sixth category is 'Careless Mistakes', in which category I would probably put class 170s (I've read on fourms several times that they have poor acceleration, no good for suburban services which is otherwise what they are suitable for).

Note that I have grouped inner-suburban and branch stock, class 150s are ok for branch line journeys under half an hour, particularly if they have lots of stops where the metro-doors reduce dwell times, and might just be acceptable for up to an hour. Also some trains blur the line between Intercity and Regional Express (mrk2/mrk3 coaches for example would be suitable for either, depending on the locomotive used to power them). Group 3 and the branch line aspect of group 5 probably also have some overlap.

Quote
1) Which ones are we short of?
As far as ATW (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC (Train Operating Company))) is concerned they are short on groups two and three, I expect First Great Western are in a similar position. If anyone needs group 5 DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), the best part of 60 such units (15 each of 142 and 143, and perhaps 25 of ATW's 36 class 150s) should be released by ValleyLines electrification, though we'd need some group 3 units in return.

Quote
2) Do we need more of the basic ones at the moment or should we really be thinking about the more of the middle group?
Based on my above comments yes, we need more of the middle group(s) (2 particularly, and perhaps some 3) (there's some group five stock operating group 3 and/or group 2 services which could be released by extra group2 / group3 stock)
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2013, 00:01:11 »

It is as I thought. What we a basic DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not what we need at the moment. 

Also I thought part of the justification for Valley Lines electrification was the need to replace the existing stock in that time-scale (DDA» (Disability Discrimination Act - about)?)
Logged
Network SouthEast
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 492



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2013, 01:26:16 »

I don't think they are - they *can* pair with Chiltern 165s/168s - although there's little point with 165s owing to different top speeds. But making them compatible to run over the tube lines on the Met means that LOROL (London Overground Railway Operations Ltd) can't borrow them.
With all due respect, I know what LOROL 172s are compatible with, and that's other Chiltern 172s, class 165s and class 168s.

IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the 172s cannot operate on the Met without being 'boxed in' between other tripcock fitted units - and because they'd then be too long for the platforms that Chiltern use it isn't ever planned to be done in service.
They don't need to be boxed in, although I note that the same erroneous statement appears on the 172 Wikipedia article. The same Wikipedia article which had other bunkum saying the 172s had a top speed of 75mph, although I note someone has now changed this to the correct top-speed of 100mph.

Only the leading bogie of the leading unit unit needs to have a trip-cock fitted to it. It is quite feasible to have a 165+172 combination on the Met line, but of course in the return direction, the set would need to be reformed or run via Little Kimble, so not that practical.
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2013, 08:13:18 »

On incompatibility the 16Xs which will be  released by TV electrification and Crossrail , possibly to the Bristol area, are not compatible with 15X et al now running in the area.
Logged
Southern Stag
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 984


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2013, 08:21:01 »

It shouldn't be too hard to fix though. They can couple mechanically just not electrically at the moment. Apparently it isn't hard to fix the electrical incompatibility problems though, and indeed as we've discussed above some 172s couple to 16x and some to 15x, it shouldn't be hard to switch between the two.
Logged
swrural
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 647


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2013, 13:16:12 »

The 159s on the Exeter to Waterloo service are essentially performing a 'secondary route' service.  With their 'Salisbury reliability' they do a very good job, only handicapped by the present need to stop every 10 miles or so.  For a long journey (I do AXM to WAT or CLJ) it is a bit tedious and cramped.  The seating is just a vital 10 cms too squashed for knee room.  My wife (1.65m) has no trouble but my knees naturally splay out to hit the sides of the hollows in the seat in front (I am 1.8m).  The alternative of sitting at a table poses the risk of involuntarily playing kneesie with the OP (Original Poster / topic starter) (opposite pas not other poster).

The rolling buffet trolley is adequate for most pax, even over 2 hours.  Thus I would like to see, for the services I have in mind on the Western and Wessex lines, something similar to the SWT (South West Trains) 159, with updated bogs and wifi.

The SWT WAT - EXD» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) service is a jolly line but changes its nature at Basingstoke going east.  I have wondered whether such long routes could do with becoming 'fast' (i.e. non-stop) when a distance (60 miles?) from the smoke.  Thus my hope for two tier services.  It is starting to go that way with the increasing interchange at Salisbury, for instance.

So a service Bristol to Weymouth or same to Pompey should have '159 facilities', and improved as described above.  I would like to see a SWI» (Swindon - next trains) to EXD service that would interchange neatly with the others (or merge at Westbury).

I think the possible improvements in this central Wessex area are being hampered by the separate franchises of SWT and FGW (First Great Western), whereby such connections across the region are being under-served.  I can also see PLY» (Plymouth - next trains) or EXD to SOT via BMH being also ignored but the demand is there, and if you, as  I have while doing pax surveys, met many pax standing bewildered at UPW (yes Upwey!!) awaiting a change to a 'Heart of Wessex' having being booked to do that by ticket office staff at BMH, then you would see that I might have a point.   Cheesy   Angry 
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2013, 19:00:43 »

Also I thought part of the justification for Valley Lines electrification was the need to replace the existing stock in that time-scale (DDA» (Disability Discrimination Act - about)?)
DDA/RVAR has been replaced by EU» (European Union - about) directive with something called PRM (Persons with Reduced Mobility)-TSI, (Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability). I thought scrapping of the 150/2s released from the ValleyLines was highly unlikely, but Pacers I thought had to go. However, this month's (March 2013) Modern Railways magazine shows artisit's impressions of a compliant Pacer, which suggests serious thought has gone into life-extending them. Also, what I thought was the key issue (internal steps) is marked as 'Compliance achieved'. Even if Pacers aren't life-extended, there's 20 odd 150/2s for the ValleyLines to casade elsewhere.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2013, 19:33:31 »

Only the leading bogie of the leading unit unit needs to have a trip-cock fitted to it. It is quite feasible to have a 165+172 combination on the Met line, but of course in the return direction, the set would need to be reformed or run via Little Kimble, so not that practical.

I did wonder about that when writing 'boxed in' - because as you say it only really needs a tripcock fitted unit leading a mixed pair, but then with the added hassle factor of running around at either end coming into play, I guess that's a good enough reason why it  wouldn't happen in regular service. 

However it's really an academic discussion, because I also suppose that it isn't expected by Chiltern to lead to any operational problems, else they'd have ordered the units with tripcock gear in the first place...

Paul
Logged
Southern Stag
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 984


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2013, 23:15:05 »

I believe the problem was the design of the bogies on the 172s means tripcocks can't be fitted, otherwise they presumably would have done for increased operational convenience.
Logged
ROGace
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2013, 08:23:51 »

The 159s on the Exeter to Waterloo service are essentially performing a 'secondary route' service.  With their 'Salisbury reliability' they do a very good job, only handicapped by the present need to stop every 10 miles or so.  For a long journey (I do AXM to WAT or CLJ) it is a bit tedious and cramped.  The seating is just a vital 10 cms too squashed for knee room. 
The rolling buffet trolley is adequate for most pax, even over 2 hours.  Thus I would like to see, for the services I have in mind on the Western and Wessex lines, something similar to the SWT (South West Trains) 159, with updated bogs and wifi.

The SWT WAT - EXD» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) service is a jolly line but changes its nature at Basingstoke going east.  I have wondered whether such long routes could do with becoming 'fast' (i.e. non-stop) when a distance (60 miles?) from the smoke.  Thus my hope for two tier services.  It is starting to go that way with the increasing interchange at Salisbury, for instance.

So a service Bristol to Weymouth or same to Pompey should have '159 facilities', and improved as described above.  I would like to see a SWI» (Swindon - next trains) to EXD service that would interchange neatly with the others (or merge at Westbury).

I think the possible improvements in this central Wessex area are being hampered by the separate franchises of SWT and FGW (First Great Western), whereby such connections across the region are being under-served.  I can also see PLY» (Plymouth - next trains) or EXD to SOT via BMH being also ignored but the demand is there, and if you, as  I have while doing pax surveys, met many pax standing bewildered at UPW (yes Upwey!!) awaiting a change to a 'Heart of Wessex' having being booked to do that by ticket office staff at BMH, then you would see that I might have a point.   Cheesy   Angry 


LOL (laughing out loud) hear hear!

I have been watching this thread with interest and I also posted yesterday on whether we will get improvements on the heart of Wessex line (thread) where i now live nr Dorchester.
I also have for 50 years used AXM-WAT and seen how things have evolved over that time.

Of course lines such as WEY-BRSTL, Portsmouth-CDF» (Cardiff - next trains) S'ton-BRSTL EXT-Barnstaple and the slower BTM (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI))-Devon-PNZ slow services need decent trains with a class 158/159 quality...

why cannot more of these be built?
they fit the build completely and can be tweaked to comply with disabled regs.

all of our SW regional and branch lines almost without exception have become busier and busier.
Exmouth, Paignton, St Ives, Newquay Falmouth Weymouth and so on...
offer a more better frequency then the trains have historically become more crowded so we need more new trains.

it is offensive to think passengers will put up for much longer with second rate trains like a one car sprinter or a pacer 'rail bus' on 2 hour journeys or more...
have you tried PNZ to Taunton in a 2 car dirty sprinter?  mmm great Sad
slower trains on the PNZ or WEY lines really need 159 type quality trains.

as someone mentioned Swindon-Padd pax for one hour get an HST (High Speed Train) but PLY-MAN or EDI pax get a 4 car voyager which takes all day.

If the old S&D (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway) from BMTH to Bath & BRS (Business Rates Supplement) was still open now  it would be a very busy useful regional route.

Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page