165/6s won't be able to run Portsmouth-Cardiff

[whole diary]

[northwesterntrains]

For standard gauge you can either have a 150 type carriage (wider than units like 156 but 20m in length) or a 156 (longer than 150 carriages but narrower than a 156.)

Well that clears everything up, thanks for the elegant explanation...

Yes I obviously meant 156s are longer but narrower than a 150.  I tried to explain it in the most simple terms.

Having said that, northwesterntrains' assertion that this is required for 3+2 seating is nonsense, as there are high-density suburban units operating all over the network that have 3+2 seating and aren't built to the WR loading gauge (450s are just one example).

Nonsense?!

All these units were built with 3+2 seating:
A 450 (or a 350/2) carriage is 20.4m long and 2.8m wide
A 165 (or a 166) carriage is 22.9m long and 2.8m wide
A 150 carriage is 20.6m long and 2.8m wide
A 142 carriage is 15.6m long and 2.8m wide

Can you see not see the pattern?  They are all the same width, give or take a few cm.  However, the 165s and 166s are the exception as they are around 1.5m longer than any other train built to a 2.8m width

Now let's look at some units built with 2+2 seating:
A 170 carriage is 23.6m long and 2.7m wide
A 175 carriage is 23.7m long and 2.7m wide
A 156 carriage is 23.0m long and 2.7m wide

Now I'm not arguing that 10cm is enough extra width for an extra seat but I don't know about any 2.7m wide carriages being built with 3+2 seating.

The 350/1s are an exception but they were originally intended to be 450s before being adapted to become 350/1s and the longer distance services they were planned to be used on made 2+2 seating more suitable.

[paul7575]

The main thrust of my argument is that the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter)'s original statement, that Turbo stock would not be able to operate Cardiff-Portsmouth just because it currently isn't gauge-cleared for the route, is almost certainly complete garbage.

I agree - the map quoted is out of date anyway, because (as we discussed at the time) 165/166 have been recently cleared for Guildford to Basingstoke via Woking, and Redhill to Selhurst depot, as part of last autumns preps for the Reading Blockade.  No one has yet mentioned any physical works being needed at the typical SR^‡(resolve) stations on those routes.

Not currently cleared doesn't mean can't be cleared.  Since the early 1990s new stock is only ever route cleared for its initial area of operations.

Paul

[northwesterntrains]

Not currently cleared doesn't mean can't be cleared.  Since the early 1990s new stock is only ever route cleared for its initial area of operations.

You should note there are 3 colours on the map; one showing lines where the 166s are cleared, one showing lines where clearance hasn't been given but there are no known clearance issues and a third showing lines where there would be known clearance issues.  The issue with Portsmouth-Cardiff is showing a substantial section of known clearance problems.

Now I accept there is no mention of the exact clearance problem.  It could be anything from an adjustment to one platform for clearance, to rebuilding all platforms on that section for clearance or even rebuilding a section of track to make it less tight/curvy.

It's also worth noting that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have only ever stated the displaced Turbos will be sent to other suitable lines.  Cardiff-Portsmouth seems to be more of a wish than a proper proposal and if it is found to be costly to create clearance on that line then I can see them being used elsewhere.

[smokey]

The proposal is from what I hear, to get the Turbo's cleared for most routes, isn't much of a problem in most cases, some platforms in Cornwall had to have minor adjustments in the early 90's for 158's to be cleared (St Germans was one).

A lot of platforms in Devon & Cornwall had to be altered for class 158 operation, at Par platform 1 it was a simple skimming of parts of the platform edge, (not so simple when) 4mm had to be skimmed in places, try that with a 6mm stone cutter. 

Devonport Platform 1 was a mayor alteration the curved part at west end was removed. and the straight platform area rebuilt, during the rebuild, Brunel's original platform edge was un-covered some 4 foot from the present platform edge.

[anthony215]

Maybe in the not too distant future, providing they can be cleared we could see a class 165 working a service through Melksham

[paul7575]

You should note there are 3 colours on the map; one showing lines where the 166s are cleared, one showing lines where clearance hasn't been given but there are no known clearance issues and a third showing lines where there would be known clearance issues.  The issue with Portsmouth-Cardiff is showing a substantial section of known clearance problems.

Now I accept there is no mention of the exact clearance problem.  It could be anything from an adjustment to one platform for clearance, to rebuilding all platforms on that section for clearance or even rebuilding a section of track to make it less tight/curvy.

It's also worth noting that DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have only ever stated the displaced Turbos will be sent to other suitable lines.  Cardiff-Portsmouth seems to be more of a wish than a proper proposal and if it is found to be costly to create clearance on that line then I can see them being used elsewhere.

In the original RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) source for the maps, alongside the explanation of the colour codes, it has this paragraph:

"The initial route maps produced following the structure clearance analysis indicate that a large number of routes (shown as red)
indicate Special Reduced or Foul clearances. It may be possible to clear these routes following some minor works (ie localised
track movements, structure remedial works), since it only takes one substandard clearance upon a route to prevent gauge
clearance at this stage. "

Which seems a lot more positive.

Getting back to using Turbos on Portsmouth Cardiff, and in the Bristol area, it is a bit more than a DfT wish - it has been in the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) route plans for the relevant areas for the last three years or so.

Paul

[willc]

It may very well have been, but ultimately, the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) is a big wish list. And I am afraid I fail to see what possible advantage a three-car Turbo would offer over a three-car 158 (which in any case is far better configured for medium-distance work than Turbos - why do you think those of us on the Cotswold Line dislike 166s so much?), when the common consensus seems to be that what Cardiff-Portsmouth needs are four-car trains.

[JayMac]

In addition to, not instead of.

[ChrisB]

There's no way a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will want to run both types & have to depot / service both types in one depot....

[JayMac]

What poppycock!

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) already has different fleets allocated to one depot.

If St Phillips Marsh can already manage to service HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), 14x and 15x, I see no reason why they couldn't cope with 16x.

[ChrisB]

Is there space for another shed?

[JayMac]

So, ChrisB, first you say there's no way a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will want to service different types in one depot, when FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (and indeed most TOCs) already do. And when that assertion is challenged, rather than accept it you go with an additional spurious question.

  In answer to the question. I don't know, but hardly an insurmountable problem. Who knows - maybe we'll even see a return of a Bath Road depot. Lots of land there....

[paul7575]

In addition to, not instead of.

I must admit I've assumed that it would be more likely 165/6s replace 158s in the wider 'Bristol area' to allow all the 158s to operate on the Portsmouth route in 4 car pairs. A mix of 165/6 or 158 on a route with reservations available wouldn't be practical, and running Turbos in multiple makes revenue and catering different anyway...

But to address willc's point, I was referring to the route business plans, not the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), and if you read a few years worth in hindsight many things in them do seem to happen...

Paul

[ChrisB]

The point I'm driving now is that the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) won't be paying - the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) will.

The more money needed, the less likely the DfT would send them....

I must admit I've assumed that it would be more likely 165/6s replace 158s in the wider 'Bristol area' to allow all the 158s to operate on the Portsmouth route in 4 car pairs, or possibly there

me too.

But to address willc's point, I was referring to the route business plans, not the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), and if you read a few years worth in hindsight many things in them do seem to happen...

But aren't these RBPs driven by the RUS?....

[paul7575]

But aren't these RBPs driven by the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy)?....

Not necessarily.  There wasn't a GW^▸ (Great Western) RUS until early last year, but there were earlier annual route plans, indeed I'd suggest they are a more frequently changing and up to date document. 

I expect the RBPs do mostly adopt what's in the RUS once the latter is 'established' though.  The last 'first generation' RUS expected, for the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line), is still only in draft form, but the relevant business plans have always reflected what was going on at the time...

Paul