Replacement train orders - classes 465/6 and perhaps 165/6?

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Thanks. Sounds a world apart from the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 166s. Externally, they present as outrageously noisy and not too good from the inside either. It's surprising to find that they were built when they were.

Time for another hat tip to the 158/159 which for some reason now also fairly ancient, especially once aboard seem to hit a sweet spot and even externally don't make such a militant confrontational racket as the 166s. A big improvement at Paddington is that the 165/166s have ceased to impact the environment of the Hammersmith and City platforms.

Mark

[stuving]

Very quiet when operating in 25KV mode. 

More seriously though, in diesel mode the power pack vehicle is louder than, for example, an IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) or Turbo^▸ (Class 165 and 166 trains used on Thames Valley services) engine, but not by much.  And of course the rest of the train is extremely quiet unlike DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with underfloor engines.  You might need a larger power pack vehicle, and therefore a little more noise, if you were to provide five passenger vehicles as the current examples only go up to four passenger vehicles.

I don't think power is an issue. The class 755/4 has nearly 2 MW of grunt, and is overpowered by British standards using only three of its four engines. (I think they fit four more for mass balance than anything else.)

What I'm less sure about is whether Stadler's kit of bits of train can do a 5-car bi-mode. But I am sure they can find a way, even if they don't have one already.

[IndustryInsider]

What I'm less sure about is whether Stadler's kit of bits of train can do a 5-car bi-mode. But I am sure they can find a way, even if they don't have one already.

Let’s hope so.  A tri-mode fleet with a mixture 4/5 car units plus power pack vehicle, and a bi-mode (diesel and battery) 3-car fleet for most of the branches would be ideal replacements IMHO^▸ ('in my humble opinion').

[GBM]

What I'm less sure about is whether Stadler's kit of bits of train can do a 5-car bi-mode. But I am sure they can find a way, even if they don't have one already.

Let’s hope so.  A tri-mode fleet with a mixture 4/5 car units plus power pack vehicle, and a bi-mode (diesel and battery) 3-car fleet for most of the branches would be ideal replacements IMHO^▸ ('in my humble opinion').

Any chance of putting IndustryInsider on the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) board please - you've my vote if there's a vote involved!

[eightonedee]

If I were a betting man, I suspect the Class 769 project will bear fruit late next year that is already rotten and we will then bumble on for a further year or two with hopeless reliability on the North Downs (but more Turbos^▸ (Class 165 and 166 trains used on Thames Valley services) in the west at least!) before finally the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)» /GBR^▸ (Great British Railways)▸ gives up with them.  It will cascade something temporary in from elsewhere and order a new fleet of units for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) of one or two classes/types (hopefully FLIRTS) to replace the cascaded units, any remaining Castles, and DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)▸ from the 150/158/165 and 166 fleet...but that will put us around the 2026/7 mark.

That would be the most satisfactory outcome to what I think will be a frustrating next few years.

Boy, am I glad I am now retired, and don't have to look forward to this on my old North Downs commute!

BTW^▸ ('by the way'), II^▸ (IndustryInsider - a respected member of this forum) - if that's the most satisfactory outcome, what does a less satisfactory one look like - struggling on for years with 769s & Turbos?

[JayMac]

Time for another hat tip to the 158/159 which for some reason now also fairly ancient, especially once aboard seem to hit a sweet spot and even externally don't make such a militant confrontational racket as the 166s.

The 158/159s may be quieter than 165/166s but I wouldn't say they were particularly quiet. SWRs^» (South Western Railway - about) examples can be very noisy inside due mainly to the aircon system. Externally, I can hear them accelerating from my flat, half a mile from the station.

[Clan Line]

Time for another hat tip to the 158/159 which for some reason now also fairly ancient, especially once aboard seem to hit a sweet spot and even externally don't make such a militant confrontational racket as the 166s.

The 158/159s ..................... SWRs^» (South Western Railway - about) examples can be very noisy inside due mainly to the aircon system.

At least they have aircon - and it usually works !

[Electric train]

Time for another hat tip to the 158/159 which for some reason now also fairly ancient, especially once aboard seem to hit a sweet spot and even externally don't make such a militant confrontational racket as the 166s.

The 158/159s may be quieter than 165/166s but I wouldn't say they were particularly quiet. SWRs^» (South Western Railway - about) examples can be very noisy inside due mainly to the aircon system. Externally, I can hear them accelerating from my flat, half a mile from the station.

We seem to forget how noisy and drafty the old class 117 etc were especially when at 70mph

[IndustryInsider]

BTW^▸ ('by the way'), II^▸ (IndustryInsider - a respected member of this forum) - if that's the most satisfactory outcome, what does a less satisfactory one look like - struggling on for years with 769s & Turbos^▸ (Class 165 and 166 trains used on Thames Valley services)?

Possibly - all the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) could probably soldier on for a decade or more with a bit of TLC^▸ (three letter code, or tender loving care, depending on context ) - or they could end up ordering a mixed bag of new local and regional trains from different manufacturers that are not as good as FLIRT's.