165/166s on this route

[whole diary]

[devonexpress]

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

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

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

[rogerw]

The problem is that the 180s have gone to Grand Central who have also reserved those currently used by Hull Trains.  Their reliability is still poor and GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) are now looking at hiring a loco hauled set to fills the gaps.

[Timmer]

The problem is that the 180s have gone to Grand Central who have also reserved those currently used by Hull Trains.  Their reliability is still poor and GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) are now looking at hiring a loco hauled set to fills the gaps.

Well they shouldn’t have got rid their small fleet of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) then so keen they were to have GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)’s 180s.

[paul7575]

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

Paul

[Clan Line]

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

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

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

[phile]

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

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

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

GWR wanted 2 + 2 seating but were overruled by DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) who count the seats, no interest in passenger comfort

[eightonedee]

Reflecting on the news that ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) are apparently insisting that the ex- first class sections of Thames Turbos be converted to 5 across seating, how will this work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ellendune]

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

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

I thought it was DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) who had made the decision not ORR!

[CMRail]

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

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

I thought it was DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) who had made the decision not ORR!

You’d be right in saying that.

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

[didcotdean]

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

[Timmer]

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

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

[devonexpress]

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

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

I thought it was DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) who had made the decision not ORR!

You’d be right in saying that.

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

As i've said before write a letter or email the Dft expressing your concerns about the state of the Class 165,166s compared to the 158s, The last time i went on one from Paddington to Twyford I have to say it was very disappointing, dirty seats, leg room was incredibly cramped.  Being from the West Country, and having some guy with a baseball cap staring at me for nearly the entire journey did worry me, especially with no on board staff other than the driver. In fact it was at that moment I completely changed my attitude to DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) trains.   

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

[eightonedee]

Thanks for putting me right on the source of the "direction". I suppose my rhetorical question should have been "what's the point of ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) if DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) gets involved in micro-managing details like this"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is there to like?

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

[devonexpress]

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

[CMRail]

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

Not enough around, hopefully whoever takes the next franchise will offer to order some new rolling stock, and maybe DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) could electrify some more areas.