Great Western Coffee Shop

This December - 5 x 142s to leave the South West (already known about - these were units to cover the lower availability during fleet refurb).   Then ... I understand ...

June 2010
South West to loose the remaining 7 x 142 and 5 x 2 car 150s
South West to gain 7 x 3 car 150s

Views relayed to me

a) No real change  in practise- same total capacity   
and
b) Could cause problems with a loss of operational flexibility

after spending over an hour on a pacer to barnstable... no love lost there but why are the 2 car 150's going?? the franchise system is stupid just let tocs aquire there own rolling stock!

If you assume the 142's are always diagrammed in pairs then there are 8 available diagrams with a spare 142. This will reduce to 7 diagrams. Is this too simplistic?

Hopefully the 5 150s are coming to Bristol to repplace the 143s.

the pacers were said to be fit for purpose now dont get me wrong there are some routes they are fine for but exeter to barnstable no long journey lot of stopping and there really uncomfortable and you cant just sit back and relax on one it feels like everyone is in your face ( im hoping the higher seats on a 143 make this a bit better) , exeter to exmouth this route is getting busyer and busyer which means 2 pacers together... no connecting corridor so the guard is in a different section of the train sealed off is this actually safe?

Yes, my wife did the Exmouth branch yesterday and commented on the hordes of passengers alighting at Exmouth and how full the train was even with 4 coaches . She even took a photo of the 142 - I must be training her well!

Lets not forget the busy Riviera Line. 2 car can be a bit of a squeeze at certain times!

bring back locos!

it's barnsaPle, theres a P in it.  ;) ;)

Erm ... and a 't'!  ;) :D ;D

lmao!!!

Depends what you mean by IMAO, relex109.  There are various definitions.  ::)

However, to set the context - I'd overlooked your mis-spelling of Barnstable, as we moderators have a policy of not picking holes in spelling.  However, when vacman pointed it out, I did see the opportunity to make a rather quizzical reference to his own correction itself being mis-spelt!  I rather regret having got involved, now - even in such a light-hearted way.

the lmao was also ment in a light hearted way both at myself and vac as im sure was also his intention but now as someone has taken this too seriously i wish i never posted a reply,....

In that case, no offence taken, relex109!  Would you be happy for me to just remove our last two posts?

I remember having got "caught short" once in that area and having to stop there for a P ...

Now ... where WERE we ...

Oh yes - discussing whether fewer, longer trains with in total the same number of seats would cause a problem.   I can recall reacting less than positively when told (at the height of cancellation chaos) that we still had the same amount of capacity on the TransWilts, since the one train that HAD run one day was 4 coaches long ...

im not sure if your messing or not so i would like to take the time to say i takes alot to offend me and i enjoy talking to everyone on this forum and that if i have anoyed anyone i am truly sorry that was not my intention

Sorry, I'm lost. What does IMAO mean? How is it so offensive?

As for the Pacers, the sooner they go the better.

Perhaps one could be retained for Melksham trains?

I was pretty lost too ... but found 4 different definitions when I searched and I suspect that different parts of the FGW area read it differently - which is how offense might have been read into something when I don't think it was intended for a moment.


According to what I heard, some of the 142s will be with us to summer 2010 and the 143s for an indefinite period (someone may know better).  I also understand that all the 142s and 143 have to be completely off the railways by 31st December 2019, due to regulations relating to robustness in colliisions which come in the effect the following day.

In all seriousness, with regard to retaining a very small number of units of one type, (e.g. 142s or 143s purely for the TransWilts) you have the issue of needing a disproportionate number of spares - we've seen that with the Adelantes - and also the issue that the engineering team have a much harder job keeping them high availabiity as each of the tasks they do on them is nothing like to much a matter of routine.  Witness the "centre of excellence" that Exeter has become for 142s .... so let's cut the number that are kept there.   It's a mad world!

Another thought, though, on easing stock. The 165s and 166s can already work from Didcot to Bristol Temple Meads (indeed, I've travelled on one to and from Chippenham in the days before I knew they were different).   There is a problem with them through the platform at Trowbridge, but extending them to Westbury via 2 routes might not be so silly - and I wonder about Swindon - Cheltenham ( - Worcester) too which again completes something of a network rather than just a single route.

Hmm. 31/12/19. Hardly a tough target for the railways to beat. I would have thought they would have all fallen to bits in another 11 years, despite the TLC of Exeter Depot or whoever is looking after them.

I expect you meant "TLC" rather than TLC.

Indeed, I doubt the 150s will last much longer. Now that LM are binning them, I expect there is no TLC, not even any "TLC."

last word on the subject just to clear things up it means 'laugh my ass off'.. i think  :-[

Thanks, relex109!  ;) :D ;D

It was meant in jest but made myself look a tw*t in the process! that'll teach me to be smart!

No problem, vacman - I think we've all learned that what we type isn't necessarily what people will read!  ::)

Please, everyone, do keep on posting!  ;D

To steer this thread back to where it started....

On the 142 front, 5 units leave Exeter by 2/12/08, the other 7 have to leave by 30/6/10. If a unit has pink doors it stays until 2010! By the way FGW apparently FGW got their corporate knuckles rapped for re-painting the doors and they will have to be re-painted before they leave!

The quoted loss of 5 x 150s puzzles me - is it a loss from Devon/Cornwall or from FGW totally? What is the source of this information?

When the 3 car 150s arrive, is it ceratin that they will all stay as 3 car units as it is quite possible to strip out the centre cars from two sets and form 2 x 150/1s and one 150/2?

What has happend to the rumour that the 143s were to be transferred to Exeter?

TJ

Return of the Arriva Wales units to Wales.  So it would be completely from FGW.   Sums are -24 carriages and +21, but 14 of the carriages lost are from 142s which are lower capacity than 150 carriages, so it's net "no change" with regard to capacity.

Thanks Grahame, I had overlooked those. >:(

Doesn't do much to improve the overcowding situation, does it.

I am looking forward to hearing what FGW's management has to say for itself at the ALRUG (Avocet Line Rail Users Group) AGM this (Monday) evening, The Globe Topsham at 19:00.

As ever the West Country is the runt of the railway family in my opinion.

TJ.

i agree splitting the sets back into 2 car sets would create more units, but with 7 3 car sets coming, you'd end up with 1 spare 150/2 vehicle, or 1 non standard 3 car set!

SO when the units are transfered back to  ATW,how soon will this be?

From the meeting with FGW management tonight:

FGW are looking at splitting some of the 3 car 150s and reforming 2 car units BUT no firm decisions have been made.

The possibility of loco hauled services on some routes is definitely being looked at for the period December 2009 to June 2010.

The 143s are to be maintained at Exeter (no start date given) but these units will not be used exclusively in Devon; the Severn Beach line was mentioned as another line which will have them.

FGW are also in discussion with DfT with regards to taking over, from Decemeber 2009, the SWT services that currently operate West of Exeter.

TJ

Did FGW say which routes, xmth?

No. All still at very early stages of evaluation.

TJ

But if two of the sets coming from LM are 150001 and 150002 - the prototypes - then they have to stay as three cars, as that's how they were built, whereas the other three-car sets that LM operates have a 150/2 driving car, with corridor connections, inserted into the middle of a 150/1 set, to make a 150/0, sort of.

If FGW split some the 3 car 150s they are getting, what are they going to do with the middle carriage? Take 2 middle carriages and make a 4 carriage 150? The middle carriage of current three car 150s don't have driving cabs.

No sign of any existing 'West' drivers being trained. Last I heard locohaulage is off the agenda.

I would be most interested to find out what they propose to use for rolling stock. Crewing them however shouldnt be an issue.

I believe ATW and the Welsh Assembly can call for those subleased 150's to be returned 12 weeks after informing FGW of their intentions.

One for the Merthyr line next May possibly? Unless all the 158s being modified for the Cambrian signalling are complete by then releasing a unit or two.

Its really interesting how this is panning out. I put forward a plan to FGW in January 2008, which included proposals for loco-hauled and 3-coach Class 150 services (link below.)
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1407.msg8181#msg8181

It also included new-build units for Portsmouth-Cardiff services, which FGW are actively pushing for, and which is thought to be a key part of Network Rail's emerging RUS proposals.

I know we've said it before but the Cardiff-Portsmouth line has so much potential because of it linking quite a few major towns and cities along it's route and I think FGW recognize this hence wanting new-build units on this line. This would allow 158s to operate services currently run by 150s with 150s operating services operated by 142s/143s.

If FGW are being forward thinking then the least the Dft should be doing is supporting that even if that means looking at the terms of the current franchise if it means more investment being made by First that will bring benefits to the franchise area in the long term which will in turn bring in more revenue during future franchises.

As I said previously, except for 150001 and 002, which were the class prototypes and had centre cars built without driving cabs, all the other three-car sets currently operated by LM do indeed have a cab on the centre car, because these were all formed by splitting two-car 150/2s, which have corridor connections, and inserting them into 150/1 sets. So yes, you can get lots of two-car sets out of the three-cars, should you want to.

Just as with all but one of FGW's three-car Class 158 fleet, the centre car cabs are in full working order with yellow ends and these sets do operate as two-car if there is a fault on one coach, so you do sometimes see them out there with a corridor connection at one end (from the 150/2) and the flat cab front of a 150/1 on the other.

There is a picture illustrating the arrangement at http://www.miac.org.uk/stourbridgejunction3.htm (http://www.miac.org.uk/stourbridgejunction3.htm)

I hear that 2 x 143 units will be dedicated to the Severn Beach Line from December 08.  These will be based at Exeter and make the journey up and down each day.  I am no fan of the Pacer, but these units are easy to work on the SVB.  From a safety perspective, the guard can see right through the train and despite sounding like a Trabant rally, they can run to time.

A class 150/1, without intermediate DKS panels would  be a nightmare, although these units are fine for longer distance work. ( I have also heard that financial considerations may prevent fitting of 'standard' DKS when the 'new' units go for refurb).

That's exactly what FGW said two months before the May 2008 timetable started.

How is a 150/1 without intermediate door controls any different to work than a 143? You still have only 1 available DKS....

New build 4 car units are being pushed for for CDF-PMH services by FGW, am I ever wrong about things like this?  ;)

That's what we've been told as well :

I read in the latest issue of Modern Railways this morning that the proposed half hourly service on the Merthyr branch had been approved by the Welsh Assembly and is due to start in May 2009. That will decision will almost certainly mean that FGW will have to hand back the 5 x 150s that they have on loan from Arriva. I fear that will that leave FGW very short of stock.

TJ

On 143 units, although the DKS is in the cab, the panel itself is in the saloon.   On the 150/1, the DKS and panel is at either end of train in slam locking end section. As such, a conductor can't see right through the train as opposed to the view afforded by the more open construction of a 143, (great added safety feature which also speeds up operation). 

 150/1 coaches are longer and have the potential to carry more passengers, which slows down guard's progress through train and makes for a longer hop back to DKS  and slam style crew door.    Add to this the fact  that 150/1's are worked with BR1 keys as opposed to the infinitely easier to use T carriage key. :o

These factors may seem quite trivial and no doubt, crews would soon become accustomed to the demands of the 'new' stock, but from a purely personal viewpoint, the seconds added would soon add up, particularly during rush hour.

No you aren't Vacman, you have very reliable sources. 4 car units with first class returning?

Only 1 extra unit needed for a half hourly service. The others were for lengthening existing trains, of which nothing was said.

More on the Cardiff-Merthyr service in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2242.msg27928#msg27928

Forgive my ignorance - what's DKS?

I have received this from FGW :

door key switch  when turned on it provides power to the crew control buttons to allow the doors to be armed and closed and also energises the interlock to operate the signal buzzer from control panels.


i am reliably informed all the 150/1's fgw will eventually have in the fleet will have intermediate control panels fitted once they are refreshed.

it would be a major job to split the hybrid 3 car 150's LM operate as the middle cabs are not complete (i.e been used for spare parts) and the snow ploughs are missing. they have been together for that long now it would be better to leave well alone in my opinion.

I agree about the view, but on the 150/1 you have 2 positions to work the doors as the DKS are situated in both end vestibules, so therefore more options. I've also heard a rumour the DKS will be turned round on the 143's refresh, so that they are in the saloon.

I agree about the view, but on the 150/1 you have 2 positions to work the doors as the DKS are situated in both end vestibules, so therefore more options. I've also heard a rumour the DKS will be turned round on the 143's refresh, so that they are in the saloon.
[/quote]

that will be a good modification if it is done,will have to wait a couple of weeks for 143617 to return and see if it is done

London Midland will have to return them to the ROSCO in full working order, and don't be suprised if they are split up to return to the ROSCO!

I believe the staff side have requested that the DKS be remounted so as to be on the saloon side of the cab bulkhead. The former HST driving seats fitted to some of the 143's have impeded access to the DKS, there is also the issue of guards entering the leading cab to operate the DKS when carrying out revenue protection on crowded services.

There are two odd 57 cars from 150/2 units within certain LM 150/0 three car sets. The 52 cars have in both cases been destroyed in accidents so I wouldnt think they will be reformed as a 2 car class 150/2 as there would be no lavatory in the set.

Depot rumour has it that the all the earmarked three car units will be supplied in that formation. Someone quite senior did tell me not to expect intermediate DKS positions with refurb though, due to cost  constraints.  Again, only word of mouth and not an indication of official policy.

With regard to reversing the DKS on 143s. yes please, especially if we are to 'retain' a pair in the Brizzle area to work SVB services.

Some of the central cabs in LM 150s have speedos that don't work fully. As well as this, a lot of work would be needed to get the cabs overall up to scratch.

And of course the trains themselves are in a bad state. Lots more breakdowns, engine cut outs and slow journeys since LM took over (and it was bad under Central). Clearly maintenance is very poor. There has been no investment on the appalling interiors (the only members of the LM fleet not to have had refurbs): seats falling off, windows that don't open..... or close, heaters which are on in summer and off in winter, external doors where the hydraulics are knackered and interior connecting doors that don't work. They are filthy, the fumes enter the passenger "saloons" , the toilets are woefully bad.

They are clapped out, and I do not envy any FGW passengers in Wiltshire who will be using them in 201X. FGW will have to spend ^ot$ of mon^y to get them up to an acceptable standard.

Something for all us FGW customers down in the Bristol area to look forward to then Btline. Who do the government think they a kidding all this talk of 1,300 new carriages  ::)  I'm sure they will get a good thorough refurb both inside and underneath before entering service though I suspect if Northern need their 142s back in a hurry the LM 150s may have to be pressed into service unrefurb'ed. Time will tell I guess.

Part of the 1,300 coaches is cascades I think!

I also hope they are refurbed by then.

Quite right, the '1,300' certainly does include cascaded stock, not least all the LM 150s.

A further note on FGW's share of the 1,300 (or is that 1,156, asks Roger Ford after doing some sums in Modern Railways?) FGW is meant to get 52 vehicles, 12 of them 150s. The other 40 are meant to be for the Thames Valley fleet. Ford says overtures about taking 165s from Chiltern, with them getting more new 168-type vehicles, were rebuffed, but Chiltern apparently hinted they might be interested in more FGW 165s, which might imply a small 172 build for FGW, but Ford notes - as discussed here previously - anyone funding these would want to see some cast-iron guarantees of long-term returns from these trains if the wires go up. Was never entirely sure FGW would want Chiltern 165s anyway, as they are speed-limited to 75mph, so not that handy on the now 90mph GWML relief lines.

And as Vacman says, Roscos want stock back in proper order, so any dodgy 150 cabs should be fixed by LM before returning them. Don't forget, FGW had to do remedial work on the 180s before they went off-lease. A refresh to match the rest of the FGW fleet seems obvious.

And if you were LM, would you bother spending money on anything more than the basics to keep them running just now? Thames Trains let the Turbos get very tatty in their final year. FGW retrimmed all the seats as an urgent priority after taking over.

Depot rumor is wrong regarding 150 formations. Think it's supposedly 6 x 150/1 in two car formations. ATW / Northern to recieve the 150/2 vehicles. The only 150/0 three cars that will stay as is are 150001 and 002, possibly also the two with the unpaired 150/2 centre cars.

The centre cars of 150001 and 002 are incompatible with other class 150's as they have EMU / Pacer type gangway connections and Bar couplers

As for 143's they will be allox to 83C for maintainance but 4 sets head toward Bristol each day for WSM-Parkways and the Severn beach line. Hopefully saving taxis running up and down the M5 into the bargain......

Noting the comment "83C" I guessed "Exeter" ... but then thought that other might wonder too.  It's an old loco shed code - the 83 group was as follows:

83A - Newton Abbot
83B - Taunton
83C - Exeter
83D - Plymouth (Laira)
83E - St. Blazey
83F - Truro
83G - Penzance
83H - Plymouth (Friary)

These codes changed over time - fuller lists I found in my research:

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/AllTimeShedCodes.pdf
http://www.dukedog.co.uk/WR.html

Reading S. was 70C, (Sub shed of Guildford), not 70E as listed.