Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 18:15 02 May 2025
 
- Activists say ship aiming to sail to Gaza was attacked by drones
- Trump disliked Trudeau. Here's why Carney may fare better
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 tomorrow - Walk to Pilning
10/05/25 - BRTA Westbury
10/05/25 - Model Railway Show, Calne
13/05/25 - Melksham TUG / AGM

On this day
2nd May (1859)
Royal Albert Bridge opens

Train RunningCancelled
16:57 Exmouth to Paignton
17:34 London Paddington to Hereford
17:35 Swindon to Westbury
18:50 Paignton to Exeter St Davids
18:51 Evesham to Oxford
Short Run
15:50 Penzance to Gloucester
16:31 Barnstaple to Axminster
16:40 Paignton to Exmouth
16:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:04 Didcot Parkway to Evesham
17:15 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
17:26 Exmouth to Paignton
17:50 Gloucester to Salisbury
17:56 Exmouth to Paignton
18:15 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
19:12 London Paddington to Bristol Parkway
19:51 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
20:06 Westbury to Cheltenham Spa
20:10 Gloucester to Bristol Temple Meads
21:00 Bristol Temple Meads to Worcester Shrub Hill
Delayed
An additional bus service has been planned to operate as shown 18:13 Chippenham to Westbury
18:18 Carmarthen to London Paddington
An additional bus service has been planned to operate as shown 18:37 Westbury to Chippenham
An additional bus service has been planned to operate as shown 19:14 Chippenham to Westbury
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 19:35 Westbury to Salisbury
19:48 London Paddington to Swansea
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 21:16 Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 21:52 Gloucester to Worcester Shrub Hill
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
May 02, 2025, 18:32:57 *
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
[131] In memory of the Weymouth Harbour Tramway on the anniversary o...
[61] Steam excursion - except there's much more diesel than steam!
[56] Taplow-Hassocks
[56] 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[41] Bath Spa station - dealing with future capacity issues - ideas...
[38] Low passenger numbers due to train unreliability
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: 172s for FGW  (Read 12328 times)
TJ
Full Member
***
Posts: 92



View Profile
« on: November 13, 2008, 02:41:38 »

If FGW (First Great Western) are allowed to obtain the 11 x 4 car 172s that they wish to run on the Cardiff to Portsmouth route and also retain their existing DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) fleet (as is their conditional desire), how will this affect fleet deployment in the South West?

TJ
Logged
gaf71
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 305


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2008, 07:36:40 »

Where are the 172's coming from?
Logged
tramway
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 617



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2008, 12:02:22 »

Not a lot of info out there but there is a little bit about it on the West of England website

I should really have looked a bit further before I wrote the above, but came across a letter from the SWRDA» (South West Regional Development Agency - about) to Ruth Kelly specifically proposing brand new trains for the route, although it seems to imply they would come from the '1300' already proposed. (Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere).

Interesting on the WoEP site that FGW (First Great Western) are putting forward a business case, whether along the same lines as proposed by the SWRDA I don't know.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 12:25:31 by tramway » Logged
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2008, 18:41:32 »

A Class 172 Turbostar will have fewer seats than a Class 150 Sprinter it replaces[1] (e.g. a three-car 150/1 has 35 more seats than a three-car 172/3) but greater overall capacity due to the increased room for standing passengers as well as wider aisles intended to speed boarding and reduce time in stations.

The trains will be air conditioned and contain no openable windows, as opposed to the Class 150.
......

......so were just cattle now?
Logged
r james
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 223


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2008, 21:07:29 »

I do wonder however, if getting some 172 units would infact mean that a small number of the 158s which are being cascaded being transfered tp EMT» (East Midlands Trains - about), thus solving overall capacity problems for everyone??

Say FGW (First Great Western) keep 6 of the cascaded 158s, and the other 5 go to EMT, everything is solved. 
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2008, 21:15:31 »

A Class 172 Turbostar will have fewer seats than a Class 150 Sprinter it replaces[1] (e.g. a three-car 150/1 has 35 more seats than a three-car 172/3) but greater overall capacity due to the increased room for standing passengers as well as wider aisles intended to speed boarding and reduce time in stations.

The trains will be air conditioned and contain no openable windows, as opposed to the Class 150.
......

......so were just cattle now?


This is going to be a problem on LM (London Midland - recent franchise)'s Snow Hill Lines services. 30 fewer seats AND they are ordering fewer carriages! Commuters will be like sardines.

But it is good news about the windows / air con! Grin
Logged
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2008, 13:45:11 »

I don't think FGW (First Great Western) have actually mentioned what class of unit they intend to order for FGW's services, they are also planning to obtain new trains for LTV (London [and] Thames Valley)........ lets hope they go for 185's
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2008, 14:11:27 »

I don't think FGW (First Great Western) have actually mentioned what class of unit they intend to order for FGW's services, they are also planning to obtain new trains for LTV (London [and] Thames Valley)........ lets hope they go for 185's

WIll any ROSCO» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) contemplate buying a large amount of stock for a route that is highly likely to be electrified in the next decade (LTV that is.)?
Logged
devon_metro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5175



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2008, 14:16:57 »

Could they not replace all stock in Bristol and Devon/Cornwall when no longer on Thames Valley?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10457


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2008, 14:21:00 »

I don't think FGW (First Great Western) have actually mentioned what class of unit they intend to order for FGW's services, they are also planning to obtain new trains for LTV (London [and] Thames Valley)........ lets hope they go for 185's

The L&TV (Thames Valley, or TeleVision, depending on context) units will surely have to be compatible with the present 165/6 fleet for coupling purposes? I would suggest that they will be a Turbostar, probably a variant of the 172 with appropriate coupling modifications, or they will get cascaded 165's from Chiltern when they receive their on-order new vehicles in the next couple of years. Cascaded units probably make more sense than new builds as the present turbo fleet will lose around 50% of its current work when Crossrail opens.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
r james
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 223


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2008, 17:10:58 »

They should just be allowed to order 172s to meet thier full requirements, then leave it there.  Nothing more.

I suspect however its unlikely this will ever be approved. 
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2008, 17:31:58 »

There should be a continual building programme of 172s that needs to be running until all non plug door/ non air con units / buses have been sent to the scrap yard.

Then there would be a Universal UK (United Kingdom) wide DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) semi fast/local fleet.

But that is far too sensible, so lets keep the Sprinters and Pacers!
Logged
devon_metro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5175



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2008, 17:38:34 »

The problem with that is that they all reach life expiry at the same time.
Logged
Zoe
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 754


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2008, 02:47:14 »

Then there would be a Universal UK (United Kingdom) wide DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) semi fast/local fleet.
Not quite, Northern Ireland would still have different units.
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2008, 10:32:34 »

I don't think FGW (First Great Western) have actually mentioned what class of unit they intend to order for FGW's services, they are also planning to obtain new trains for LTV (London [and] Thames Valley)........ lets hope they go for 185's

The L&TV (Thames Valley, or TeleVision, depending on context) units will surely have to be compatible with the present 165/6 fleet for coupling purposes? I would suggest that they will be a Turbostar, probably a variant of the 172 with appropriate coupling modifications, or they will get cascaded 165's from Chiltern when they receive their on-order new vehicles in the next couple of years. Cascaded units probably make more sense than new builds as the present turbo fleet will lose around 50% of its current work when Crossrail opens.

I don't think Chiltern will be too keen to cascade 165/0s to FGW. Their plan is to rengine all their 165s and 168 to the same as the 172 to match their performance this is to get a 90 minute timing to Moor Street. Also if teh Oxford service gets off the ground then they will need all teh units they've got.

As has been agreed elesewhere that it will be a long time before most of the FGW is electrified a fleet of 172s for the West of England to replace Buses and 150s and provide more capacity would be a sound idea. That's why it's not going to happen.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 10:38:37 by eightf48544 » 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
  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 via admin@railcustomer.info. Full legal statement (here).

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page