Great Western Coffee Shop

On another rail website some people are saying that under DfT orders that East Midlands Trains and First Scotrail must be sub-leased 158s which are set to come from FGW and Northern Rail.  No mention on the number but it appears to be only while refurbishment works are carried out on 158s used by EMT and Scotrail.

Apparently both companies would be financially compensated, which has been suggested as why the TOCs are happy to sub-lease their trains.

Sorry why?

SWT have hundreds of spare 158s and the stretched FGW fleet is to be taken away?

I'd love to meet the idiot that made this decision, of course, hopefully a rumour

FGW's West fleet is stretched enough as it is at the moment coping with running strengthened summer services with daily reports of trains running short formed appearing once again.

The last thing thats needed is for us to lose stock to other parts of the country come the Autumn when daily commuter services become busy again after the school summer holidays.

As you say, hopefully just a rumour.

I heard today from a fairly senior source that 5 to 10 165 and or 6s may be transferred to Brizzle from Reading.  Speculation is that they will be used on  core routes, particularly to/frm Gloucester.  Unsure just how solid this is and I think that I read somewhere that Turbos would require work to be usable in the west.  If driver operation of doors is retained,  guards will be freed up to take more revenue.  :o

 I believe that SWT only have 11 2 car sets of 158s, but who knows what is lurking at Salisbury.

How long will it take until the government to realise that they need to start a large carriage building programme. Building 158 cars would be good, allowing either centre of train or end of train to be boosted.

The same with turbostars and the 185s, the small orders are not enough, a large and continuous programme is needed to cope with overcrowding and allow growth and new services. How on earth are LM going to run proposed new services if there current order (to be delivered in years!) is SMALLER than the current one. If a programme was run, the 150s could gradually be replaced, lengthened and then the new stock would be ready to run the new Moor Street services and the new Aldridge, Tamworth local services.

There should also be one type of DMU being built (obviously different door configurations and interiors to match the proposed usage - but the basic shell being the same) so all units are compatible with each other and can be sent all around the UK.

I would think it would also be cheaper than individual orders.

Or am I wrong?

WHat would replace the turbos / 166s if they move west? 

Why should EMT receive any stock for their refurbishment programme?  They should be made to make full use of the SWT stock, and they should just struggle for a little longer with shorter trains. 

Think you will find its just that. A rumor. 14 FGW 158's (the Angel Trains ones in the 158815-872 series, ex Wessex sets) went to FSR and Northern last year. The 142's are subleased as their replacement. Somebody has got their wires seriously crossed.

165's have gauging issues on the Bristol - Taunton line in any case. Not sure if they are cleared Cardiff - Portsmouth.

The guard would have to operate the doors as it would be deemed as DOO if the doors are operated by the driver and the DOO system is not allowed to be expanded from the areas where it is in operation now. Don't think our 158's are going anywhere, EMT have a surplus of 153's which will cover.

Did I read somewhere when the government released it's rolling stock plan that FGW are to receive some 165/166s from Chiltern once their new trains order arrives?

The RSP Update published recently refers to Chiltern's order of 12 coaches, which I believe is to cover growth and the additional unit needed for the Aylesbury Parkway service. So no obvious release of units there. The same plan refers to the 52 extra coaches that is well known that we will get from LM in 09/10. They are still shown as additional, which would imply that nothing goes back other than the 142s that will return once the refurb programme is finished. 

I don't think FGW could spare any 165/6's if they released any from say the Bedwyn,services  replaced with HST's the only other places would be the Branch Lines Greenford, Windsor, Marlow, Henley, Basingstoke most of these are DOO so would either require a Guard or units suitable for DOO and then there is all the Driver, maintenance etc training.  The other service could the the Reading Gatwick but then the training of staff is still a problem.

The FGW Reading to London services could do with extra coaches on quite a lot of their peak and even some of their off peak services so to loose units elsewhere would not go down to well with FGW customers especially if you consider that Paddington is the only London terminus where 3 car trains are the norm on their outer suburban services.

The other thing to consider is the 165/6 must be due for shopping the insides are disgusting and the windows either don't close or open properly.

Quite simply FGW Thames area franchise with its 165/6 is at full stretch it needs more 165/6 not less or oddball units thrown in as this would cramp the flexibility they currently have.

East Midlands Trains had some 158s in Wessex Trains livery, not sure how many.  If they were 3 car 158s then it's likely the centre coach was taken out and sent to Northern.

I don't know what trains would be supposed to cover the 158 diagrams.  SWT seem to be the only TOC with spare rolling stock and I don't know of any trains other than 180s in storage.  (I think CrossCountry took up the remaining HSTs)  DfT probably think preserved lines will forfeit their 108s for National Rail use.

The only other stock that could be freed up is the ATW 150s whcih dont seem to be seeing much use, except with FGW.  If FGW got on with the refurb of their units, theses would then be free, but wouldnt really be suitable for the EMT services i guess?

How much longer do FGW anticipate their refurbishments to take?  Surely cant be much longer?

And are the ATW hired in units getting any modifications made to them by FGW?

Why is DOO not allowed to be expanded.  Is this a H&S issue or an agreement with the Unions? 

I am just a simple passenger but these are my thoughts on DOO:  It worries me that there could be only one qualilified member of staff on a train.  It means that they have noone to help them in an emergency.  What if one of them is killed in an accident or attacked or just has a heart attack and dies?  I'd like to know that there was someone else on the train who was at least qualified enough to protect it, radio for help and deal with the passengers.   Having said this, is there any evidence at all that the current DOO routes are any less safe than what we have already?  I am puzzled as to why DOO can be passed as safe on some routes but not others.  Either it can be used anywhere or nowhere? (or am I missing something is safe DOO dependednt on extra equipment only istalled on certain routes?).

However, assuming that the Guard is retained I can't see what the problem would be with removing the closing doors job from him and giving it to the driver.  The Guard would still be there if needed in an emergency and freed of the need to operate the doors he would be better able to serve the customer and protect the company's revenue.   My understanding of the current system is that the driver checks that the doors are closed and looks back at the train as it pulls out of the station as it is.  Would giving him a button to press to close the doors himself make much difference? 

Presumably the platform needs to be straight enough for the driver to see the train doors in order to close them without leaving his cab (this, I assume would be dangerous incase the train ran away without him), but if teh Guard was present, he , or the platform staff, could close the doors on the more curved platforms (or is it asking for trouble by dividing up responsibilities too much?)

I am completely ignorant on this issue and invite you to put me right or shoot me down in flames.

SNCF at least around Paris seem to manage DOO without difficulty.  They do it by having CCTV on the platform with a bank of screens at the driver end of the platform.  As they do on the Metro and the Underground.

But then you arrive at the Gare St Lazare and see a few CRS on the platform with sub-machine guns at the ready...  I doubt if anyone gets pushed on the tracks there for complaining about smokers.

To be honest, Tim, you make some reasonable and well argued suggestions. The trouble with the railway industry is that it's very resistant to change. The Unions (and many of the crew's) point of view to a change such as the Driver assuming full control of the door operation is that (on the Guards side) it is a slow reduction in duties that will eventually lead to the removal of them all-together, and (on the Drivers side) that they should receive a much better salary for taking on more responsibility. These things all hinder change/progress even when the will behind the idea is positive.

I would be surprised to see any expansion in DOO operation and agree that it benefits nothing except for the annual salary budget - though how much of that is lost through untapped revenue, train vandalism, and other factors that only having a driver on board result in is anyones guess?

There is some form of agreement between the unions the HSE and the TOC's about DOO.

There is also the conditions of service of the staff to consider too.

On ''West'' it is permissable for the driver to release the doors, that was agreed but the other unions were never consulted as to the implementation. Therefore it fell doormant and the door release buttons have been removed from the rolling stock driving cabs. The guard was / is still required to close the doors in all instances. To introduce stock designed for DOO operation on 'West' staff would require negotiation to agreement. Sorry folks, fact of life.

The current standards for DOO require lineside and on train equipment which would be uneconomical to fit and maintain on the southwest branch lines. If you were to have a punch up on a rural train I would imagine the time taken to get BTP / Civil police to the train would be measured in hours rather than minutes. And don't forget that the traincrew have no more statutory powers than joe public when it comes to dealing with offenders in the middle of nowhere. Tazers and Batons are not part of the personal protective equipment. Once your driver gets lumped, sorry folks thats it until the cavalry turn up, fend for yourselves.

While noting that LTV run DOO trains the drivers are renumerated for the extra duties that they undertake. I expect if you asked those same drivers, a fair percentage would prefer to see the guard on the back end however.

Wessex never ever ran the 'pukka' three car 158 units in the 158798-814 series. FGW has only one set, 158798. This is in fact the only three car set running in its original formation.

IIRC 158815-7/855/871-2 went to Northern, FSR took 158866-70 & EMT took 158863-5.

They get paid less than their HSS colleagues who don't do DOO train operations, and although they get more than West drivers the cost of living near London is higher. Conditions of work also affect what pay is appropriate too though I should add, and in my opinion, LTV have the best set of conditions.

And, will the great 'harmonisation' white elephant do away with any DOO premium entirely?

As I've explained to you many times, the additional 158s SWT have are part of the franchise agreement for 2x10 coach trains on peak time services on the West of England.

Your guess is quite frankly as good as mine at the moment. Neither you nor I are going to be involved in the negotiations that will be occurring in September. The 'West' and 'LTV' drivers are being canvassed for their views by the local reps for their views as to the best way forward however. Having never seen the LTV terms and conditions I couldnt possibly comment as to their content although I understand there is no 'DOO Premium' merely a higher base salary. DOO is not paid on a 'per turn' basis I believe.

The whole question of differing salaries within a TOC is a result of the franchises having been left to their own devices on pay and conditions for a number of years and then bought together by the DFT messing around with the franchise areas at re-franchising time. FGW is not the only TOC with this problem as you are no doubt well aware. Until the issue has been adequately addressed there is no further scope for extending the scope of cross covering other tractions or routes.

DOO won't happen any time soon in the West Country. I'ts not on the agenda simply because the investment in Infastructure is massive and the savings are small on rural branch lines.

On an intensive suburban railway say 6 trains per hour, there may be 12 or 14 trains on a circuit. That's maybe 40 members of staff saved (2 shifts + spare + holiday cover).

On the Paignton line it's 1 train per hour, for the basic unit service.

Ah! but in the days of the Bristol-Oxfords the driver operated the doors, but only after the instruction from the guard. The driver also opened the doors of class 180 traction after prompting from the Train Manager. So it's not a new thing in the West Country.

From memory and correct me if I am wrong the Oxford - Bristol services were operated in the main with what would now be termed LTV drivers with a few HSS men who had previous knowledge of 165 units. There was no Wales & West involvement with these services at all.

This exactly the pain that NWR have and still are going through harmonising the disharmony caused by the big wild world of privatisation, unfortunately the people who have bared the brunt of it are the coal face staff, lets hope there is an amicable agreement

I would love to see how the Yate commuters would react to that scenario ;D

I was at Reading yesterday and a colleague confirms that the idea (nothing more), of a transfer of some Turbo stock has been mooted.

Old hands at  local depots confirm earlier posts which point out that DOO is very unlikely to happpen in the west.

You are right, although it was a 50/50 thing in the terms of driver numbers. There was no W&W involvement. The point of the posting was to state that whilst 165/166 are I think primaraly designed for DOO there was a way around the the old chestnut of the guard being in charge of the train and that was for the guard to give the instruction to the driver to operate the doors. This I assume must of been acceptable to the unions at the time so I guess that there shouldn't be much of a problem should these trains make a re-apperance in these parts.

I think it's been said before, but Turbos on non-DOO lines have the following method of despatch:

1) Driver opens doors on arrival at station (no input from Guard).
2) Guard gives 1-2 to driver on buzzer to shut doors.
3) Driver shuts doors and responds with 1-2.
4) Guard gives 2 to driver on buzzer to give right away.
5) Driver responds with 2 and departs station.

This is in use daily on several routes including Gatwick and the Cotswold Line. If Turbos get transferred to Bristol then I would imagine the same method would be used, after the relevant Union consultations have taken place so that the local staff can accept them.

As far as I can gather, going back to the original subject matter, I do not think the FGW 158 fleet will be going anywhere for the forseeable future so I don't think the 165 situation arises in any case. The only units which could concieveably dissapear are the 5 ATW 150/2s which are on short term sublease. The 5 142's going back to Northern are cover for the 15x stopped in works for refurbishment. I'm led to believe the 158 programme is nearing its end, only the 143's and remaining 150/2's to be dealt with.

I suspect the OP has somehow confused last years transfer out of the 14 Angel 158's to other operators as being an event to occur this December. I have seen no other reference to it anywhere else in cyberspace.

I rather doubt the LTV fleet has spare capacity to bail out the 'West' fleet in anycase.

Link regarding the EMT Class 158 refurbishment.
http://leytr.blogspot.com/2008/08/emt-starts-to-refurb-its-class-158s.html