Another HST looks set to be 'Turbotised' from December

[whole diary]

[Richard Fairhurst]

The reason I've seen quoted for the 166s not getting 2+2 seating was that it was physically difficult: there's some equipment under the rows of three seats that would have to be re-engineered in order to move the gangway to the centre, and that would be prohibitively expensive. My mechanical knowledge is pretty much nonexistent but no doubt someone here will be able to cite chapter and verse.

For what it's worth I catch the Sunday Hereford Turbo once every couple of months or so (though from Hereford to Charlbury, not all the way to Paddington) - I'm not just bellyaching for the fun of it. (I have family in Church Stretton and fairly often pay a Friday pm-Sunday visit, and sadly, the Turbo is the train at the most convenient time. On the most recent journey we actually cut our visit short to get an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) instead, as we wanted to get some work done.)

It's the problem in a nutshell. It's clearly nowhere near busy enough to justify a 7/8-carriage train. Yet it's just as clearly too long a journey for the 3+2 seating. Maybe I should try going via Shrewsbury and W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) to Banbury instead... oh bugger.

Incidentally, http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi-responses/698001/698004/f0007261.pdf appears to suggest that the fate of the 180s is still up in the air. It states that the cascade will see Northern Rail hand the five back to East Coast (who are still nominally the lessees) but it fails to state what they'll do with them - unlike other stock mentioned in the document, where the cascades are clearly detailed.

[IndustryInsider]

The reason I've seen quoted for the 166s not getting 2+2 seating was that it was physically difficult: there's some equipment under the rows of three seats that would have to be re-engineered in order to move the gangway to the centre, and that would be prohibitively expensive. My mechanical knowledge is pretty much nonexistent but no doubt someone here will be able to cite chapter and verse.

Quite possibly the case, and even if it wasn't it would still be more expensive as instead of new seat covers, new seats and supports would also be required.  Still, I wasn't holding out any hope anyway!

Thanks, for the FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) link: This passage caught my eye...

Of the 72 Class 150 carriages, 26 of them are currently yet to be contracted to be used by any Train Operating Company (TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)).
The Department is currently engaged in discussions with three TOCs (London Midland, Northern Trains and First Great Western) about the possible use of these trains.

With the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) stating they want to increase the number of carriages on trains into London Paddington, how about some of those 150's working the Windsors, Henley's, Marlow's and Greenford's releasing Turbos for the main line services?  Wishful thinking again probably!

[willc]

Re 166s, it wasn't just a question of the equipment under the seats (coolant header tanks, I think). It would also have needed a complete readjustment of the braking system, as the weight distribution would have been altered quite a bit apparently. So with all that and a limited budget to work with, the idea was dropped

And a train with fewer seats isn't what the Cotswold Line needs for the busiest services now in the hands of Turbos, even if they would be able to accommodate people with arms, unlike the existing design.

If I remember at the time First got the 'Link' franchise (and a subsidy of around ^100m, with Thames Trains' bid not requiring subsidy), the argument was two-fold.  Firstly there would be an improvement of service levels with the 180's replacing the Turbos as mentioned, but just as big a reason, if not bigger, was that all of these Turbos running on the main lines from Didcot to Paddington was having a serious effect on the PPM^‡(resolve) of the route as 125mph trains were having to follow 90mph trains which also stopped at Slough.  Funny how that all of a sudden doesn't seem to matter any more!

The speed segregation was another proud boast in that December 2004 press release, so probably just as easy to forget as all the other great benefits to mankind that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was offering at the time.

[IndustryInsider]

And a train with fewer seats isn't what the Cotswold Line needs for the busiest services now in the hands of Turbos, even if they would be able to accommodate people with arms, unlike the existing design.

As I said, it would have gone arm-in-arm with additional sets (normal 2+3) to couple up to at Oxford.  If you look at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th busiest Turbo trains of the day, the 09:54 ex Malvern, the 12:06 ex Worcester and the 14:35 ex Malvern a 3-Car 166 with 2+2 seating coupling up to a 2-Car or 3-Car 165/6 at Oxford would provide enough seats - and critically more comfortable ones for the longer distance journeys - at a time when there are Turbos available and with ample time in the schedules for it not to impact on the current journey time.  The same problem doesn't really seem to affect the down journeys as much, though the 13:21 ex Paddington sometimes gets a little cozy.

I still think the 08:58 ex Malvern should be a HST^▸ (High Speed Train), with the Turbo that currently works it from 05:48 at Paddington being put to good use in the morning peak.

It would also have needed a complete readjustment of the braking system, as the weight distribution would have been altered quite a bit apparently. So with all that and a limited budget to work with, the idea was dropped

Yep, design issues, a bit of engineering waffle, and most tellingly, cost, is enough to put paid to it ever happening!

By the way, if anyone wants to have a read of the current Franchise Agreement for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) it can be found at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/fgw/fgwagreement.pdf - some interesting reading in there about all sorts of issues, although some of the information is missing if it's commercially sensitive.

[ChrisB]

Re 166s, it wasn't just a question of the equipment under the seats (coolant header tanks, I think).

THis is what FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has told me.

[willc]

As I said, it would have gone arm-in-arm with additional sets (normal 2+3) to couple up to at Oxford.  If you look at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th busiest Turbo trains of the day, the 09:54 ex Malvern, the 12:06 ex Worcester and the 14:35 ex Malvern a 3-Car 166 with 2+2 seating coupling up to a 2-Car or 3-Car 165/6 at Oxford would provide enough seats

I can't comment on the afternoon services, as I use them once in a blue moon, but the idea of the 09.5X from Malvern having something in the region of 220 seats would make it distinctly cosy much of the way to Oxford, especially in the summer holidays, when it is very popular with the type of tourist with two enormous suitcases each. Standing from Charlbury and Hanborough most of the time methinks. And the amount of time that could be lost at Oxford splitting Turbos and getting people from the rear set into the front one to go further west in Thames days could sometimes make a call by an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) look like a grand prix pit stop, especially in those happy times when the halts train was worked by the front set of a five-car combination from London.

[Moreton134]

Good news, just had a look through the new Rail magazine out today, theres an article about a few Class 180's are to transfer back to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for Oxford/Cotswold services presumably to eliminate most of the remaining fast services which are turbos.    These will be  from the now aborted ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) lincoln services, also mentions it on Wikipedia for Class 180 - possibly up to 5 units to transfer back (3 of which are presently on loan to Northern).

[ChrisB]

There's a thread specifically on this./...but then again, not everything in Rail is correct either.

[Moreton134]

Does anyone know why most of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s (off peak) have been removed from Cotswold Line and some Oxford services in recent years from 2009?

I can recall when FGW^▸ (First Great Western) started using Class 180's for the line it promised high speed (comfort wise) stock.   The HST's replaced them like for like, but most services have since been reverted back to Turbos which are rather unsuitable for long distance services e.g. from London Paddington to Geat Malvern.

I agree that running a half empty HST off peak is not economic, and surprised that so many services were HST's back in 2009.   What I don't understand is that sometimes FGW run a London to Oxford (HST) with the longer distance Cotswold Line service being a Turbo  .   Are the missing HST's a result of becoming less reliable? more services to the South West/Wales?

Anyway Turbos aren't that bad to travel in as it could be alot worse say a class 150 or Pacer!!!

Sorry if this post is slightly unrelated to the subject but didn't want to start a fresh topic for just a random question.

[ChrisB]

Money.

The recession coupled with the major increase in the cost of fuel.
Couple that with the fact that everyone still gets a (not so comfortable) seat & they meet framchise requirements.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Agreed with Chris, but off-peak HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s are so under occupied on the CL and for many off-peak services Turbo capacity is adequate. Turbo ride is very acceptable but 3 x 2 seating is not for the longer CL journeys and when a 3 car Turbo is replaced with a 2-car Turbo and over 100 people standing for many miles and minutes and the single toilet out of action because of so much use, conditions are diabolical. Adelantes were ideal for the CL in terms of capacity and suitability for longer journeys but reliability was a problem, so we were told. It is hoped that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) consent will be given to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) bringing back 5 Adelantes (180s) in time for the December 2011 timetable introduction.

[Richard Fairhurst]

...but until then, Turbo(t)isation of the Cotswold Line continues apace. The 07.04 from Charlbury this (Saturday) morning, publicised as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in the current timetable, was once again a Turbo; the conductor reportedly said that the diagram, publicised as an HST in the current timetable, has now been permanently assigned to a Turbo.