Great Western Coffee Shop

Question:

Where does the word "Turbo" come from in the name "Thames Turbo" (class 165, 166)?

Answer posted later....

Cause the engines on the 165/66 have turbo chargers where as the old DMU's before them had naturally aspirated engines

I'll put my anorak away now  ;D

An interesting idea, but not the one I had in mind.

Answer: It comes from the Latin "turbo, turbare" meaning "to disturb and throw into confusion!" ;D

...when a 3-car Turbo pulls in vice 8-car HST, presumably?!

... or when it blows all the oil out onto the track, possibly?

See http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2585.msg19445#msg19445  ;D

Not sure that the old Network South East management team was noted for its contingent of Latin scholars.

I think that red lamp-posts were their real strong point...

The only one though

No the digital synchornised platform  clocks was NSE at it's  best.

I always loved Alan Williams', (of Modern Railways fame), name for Network South East...Toothpaste Rail.

I know the NSE livery was controversial but in my opinion it looked pretty reasonable on most of the stock to which it was applied, plus locos and coaches as well. Remeber NSE 50s plus 10/11 mark 2s on the TV fasts.And what were the heaviest loaded trains on Chris Greens NSE Network Days, the 50s from Exeter to Waterloo.

Has anyone ever worked out the number of classes to which it was applied?

Usually when they do, they forget the Isle of Wight with it's shunting engine(s) and ex tube stock.

Only been on a Turbo twice in my life. Felt as though they were normally aspirated, asthmatic even.

Be interested if anyone could direct me to a decent source of operating diagrams IE what are 165/166s used on ? how are they diagrammed for those duties ?

Cheers

Andy

Quite loosely is the answer. There are of course diagrams specific to the three different types, but apart from making absolutely sure that 2-car trains are on the Bicester and Greenford's the rest is a bit of a lottery sometimes - especially during the day when a failure or other disruptions can result in 'stepping-up' of other units rapidly throwing the whole thing into confusion.

Depending what's on depot overnight at the two major stabling points (Reading and Oxford) any changes during the day can usually be unravelled in time for the start of service the next day.

Originally the air conditioned class 166 were supposed to be used on longer distance semi-fast trains like Paddington to Worcester, but although that still happens to a degree, like Industry Insider said, other factors take preference.

Thames Trains used to allocate the 165/166 fleet quite strictly: it was very rare to see a 166 on a stopping service from OXF to PAD and conversely it was very rare to see a 165 on a fast train.

The fleets started to be used much more interchangeably towards the end of the Thames franchise and once FGW and the Adelantes arrived (and latterly since HSTs returned to the fast services). Now it's not unusual to see either type of unit, although the stoppers are more often 165 than 166. I doubt many passengers notice the difference, seeing as the air conditioning on the 166s never works anyway. Take this out of the equation and the only major differences are carpets in 166s, lino in 165s, first class at both ends with larger tables, more luggage space and a small section in the centre car of a 166 with 2+2 seating and full-size tables.

In the summer you notice when 166's are on the local services they are unbearable and all year round with 166's as they have reduced seating, all the TT's are getting very tiered the windows don't shut properly and the ones that do seal properly you can not open in the summer seats, flooring and internal bulkheads are getting shabby they need stripping out and refitting in the same layout as the Heathrow Connect trains, the need for First Class in the TT's is debatable.

And there was I thinking there was a really organized system of allocating types and units to duties!!!!

Thanks

Andy

The air conditioning needs fixing/installing, the windows need sealing shut (a la Chiltern).

They need to be re-engined/geared, and they need re-furbing.

And they need to be banned from running any Cotswold services bar the halts train!

I think fixing the windows shut would be drastic. Perhaps a T key operated window would be better.

Fair enough - anything to prevent selfish people opening the windows and thus heating up the train for everyone!

hhm, as long as they only fix the windows shut after the air conditioning is fixed properly.. People tend to only open the windows if the train is hot in my experience...

They are of course getting a refurb - eventually. Though what form it is taken I have yet to find out. Why would you re-gear them, Btline?

Better reliability, less failures, etc.

I have been on a unit where the engine kept cutting out every few seconds. I fear the problem will only get worse, as the units get older, unless something is done.

OIC as in just replace the transmission rather than actually alter the gearing? There's not much of an engine problem with Turbos as they stand - at least when compared with Adelantes and Voyagers where more often than not at least one engine isn't firing. They might not be blessed with too much HP but the turbo charger helps make them respectable. Perhaps new higher rated engines could be installed sometime though (as Chiltern are probably going to do)?

Engines very rarely cut out and back in every few seconds - they either idle when they're too hot (mostly in the summer), or power normally. What you may have experienced is the speed cut-out governor kicking in which does so at just over 90mph. If the driver has the train on full power it will cut all power then and then reapply it when the speed drops below 90mph.

Whether it is still accurate, I don't know, but last November a report about the likely scope of Turbo overhaul was presented to London Travelwatch.

It can be seen at http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3592/get (http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3592/get)

There seems to be no prospect of air con for 165s and the intention seems to be to remove some seats in 165s to make more room for standing, and keep 3+2 in 166s.

First class could be ditched from 165s - though I'm not clear how realistic this is with the inter-working of sets, as they serve south Oxfordshire stations where there is a modest take-up of first class seasons and the Cotswold Line certainly needs first class. Even in the days when it was supposed to be pretty much all 166s, if there was a failure a three-car 165 would appear because of the seating capacity issue and if this happened, it was likely not all those with first class tickets would get a first class seat.

Interesting link, Will. Thanks.

Probably still accurate, though it would have been nice for them to have gone to the effort of providing a photo of a FGW turbo for the illustration rather than a pre-refurbed Chiltern 165/0!

Anyway, a couple of more relevant comments; good to see the CIS system getting replaced as the current system is quite old and inflexible. First Class removal is a far more contentious issue as Will rightly points out the interchangeability of the fleet doesn't lend itself to this. Also, if FGW uses that as an excuse to say it's providing 16-20 extra seats per set for commuters, then it will be kidding nobody in the know as the 1st Class is usually quickly filled by 'hoodies' and others who don't have 1st Class tickets on the suburban trains of west London anyway. Whether removal of the 2+3 seating will make much difference to the standing patterns of passengers remains to be seen.

No air-con on the 165's isn't surprising as the cost of a full refurb like Chiltern did is not easily justifiable without having many years of franchise left to get the outlay back, though to claim that it 'worsens the weight limit problem' is a bit of a hollow argument considering Chiltern's efforts. Let's hope the modification of the Class 166's air-con means a real improvement - rather than a clean out and replacement of components in the existing system which will soon perform badly again. And I repeat again, the main problem is the passengers opening the windows making whatever efforts the air-con is putting in worthless.

Contained within the East Customer Panel minutes is the following info about the refresh programme, which seems to be cut back from what London Travelwatch were told, though 165s will keep first class. There now seems little prospect of a full air-con refit for the 166s - in addition to the details given below, a question was asked which got the following response:

2) Will there be a temperature control on the refurbished fleet? R.R replied that we would be spending some money on the air-conditioning, which will be a marked improvement, but to get a similar standard to that on Chiltern^s carriages you would have to spend a lot of money and unfortunately in the current climate we simply cant afford to.  The refurbishment is a ^6m franchise commitment, 1st Class will NOT be removed and 3+2 seating will remain.

Business Update
Presentation by Richard Rowland, Route Director (East)

Turbo refresh ^ confidential
^   Revised scope of work for 151 vehicles
^   Base proposition:    ^6.63 million   (c^44k per vehicle)
^   Stretch proposition:   ^7.13 million   (c^47k per vehicle)

^   Fuller refresh on the class 166 fleet
^   Lighter refresh on the class 165 fleet
^   To be completed at the depot in Reading

^   All vehicles in both fleets will receive the following:
^   Upgrade Passenger Information System (PIS)
^   Fitment of laminated glass
^   Cab refresh

Turbo refresh ^ PIS
^   Fully compliant with all UK legal requirements
^   Railway Group Standards
^   Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998
^   Technical Standard for Interoperability.
^   The PIS provides:
^   External Destination Indicator on front of each cab
^   Moving message displays in the passenger saloon of every vehicle
^   Automated announcements
^   GPS to control the PIS
^   Driver PA

Turbo refresh ^ 166 scope of works
^   Existing seats will be recovered or
^   Stretch refreshment - renewal of seat and sub frames. Existing vehicle layouts
^   Renewal of flooring in saloon, vestibules and toilets.
^   Renewal of First Class tables
^   Fit anti-graffiti film
^   Refresh of interior to include:
^   Painting of vehicle interior, including ceilings, wall panels, bulkheads, window  panels and toilets.
^   Fitment of poster frames and magazine racks
^   Renewal of toilet seat, toilet lid and coat hooks
^   Replacement of dado panels
^   Renewal of signage


Turbo refresh ^ 165 scope of works
^   Renewal of seat moquette on all seat bases and backs
^   Renewal of flooring in saloon, vestibules and toilets
^   Fit anti-graffiti film
^   Refresh of interior to include:
^   Painting of vehicle interior, including ceilings, wall panels, bulkheads, window panels and toilets.
^   Fitment of poster frames and magazine racks
^   Renewal of toilet seat, toilet lid and coat hooks
^   Renewal of signage

Turbo refresh ^works programme
^   Refresh works
^   Design/procurement phase: Spring 2009
^   Production phase: Summer 2009 to Spring 2010
^   PIS
^   Completion in Spring 2010
^   Funding not available for mock up

I am sure the units will be tider than they are now but I can not help but feeling that we are loosing out by not having the units refitted to better serve there roles but end up with the same as they are no but just with a slap of paint, a bit seat fabric and some lino .......... all avaialbe at Homebase or B & Q

At risk of making myself into a pariah, I honestly don't see too much wrong with the Turbos currently, with the exception of the air-conditioning problems on 166s in the summer. I think they suffer from a bad press in part because the loco-hauled trains of mk 2s are fondly remembered (and you never saw Inspector Morse getting off a Turbo!)

Just travelled on a 165 this evening and looking around me it was clean and tidy, the seats were in decent condition, no litter, no graffiti, clean floors, walls and bulkheads, reasonably comfortable. I was honestly trying to find fault but couldn't find any cause for complaint. FGW keep them in immeasurably better condition than Th*m*s Tr**ns (and frankly, anyone who tries to persuade you that the bunch of cowboys at Go-Ahead running that franchise was any use is suffering from a severe case of rose-tinted spectacles) when seat covers were worn, torn or missing entirely, the bogs elegantly lived up to that name by often brimming with brown sludge, windows were heavily etched so you could hardly see out and the inside surfaces were either covered in graffiti or scratched to b*gg*ry by the vandals. The most inexcusable thing to my mind was that trains would enter service first thing in the morning knee-deep in litter having evidently not been cleaned or even litter-picked overnight.

It will certainly be welcome to see some modest improvements but I genuinely think that they are completely up to the job of inner/outer suburban work.

I reserve judgement on the Cotswold line services, but don't forget guys that not so long ago your service was nearly all Turbos (in their TT state of delapidation) sprinkled with the odd HST. Now it's the other way about!

When a Turbo arrived for the 5.20 something at WOF today, a passenger had to run from the far end of the platform - she obviously has not realised that it will be a Turbo for the foreseeable future!

No-body should have to sit in a 3+2 service for more than an hour. (preferably <45 mins) That means - NO on Cotswold services!

Its better than under wonderful Network South East/TT

Passengers from Exmouth - Barnstaple have to travel on a 142 for nearly 2 hours, does that make it acceptable?

A Pacer is different. No-body should have to travel in a Pacer for more than 2 minutes. (preferably < 1 mins)

They were fine on the Bristol - Oxford services all those years ago (about 90 mins). Never found them unduly uncomfortable; the main problem was that the window catches weren't up the the job and they kept flying open! They seem to do that less these days. I think I'm right in saying that the 165 and 166 fleets are built to the more generous GW loading gauge, which might explain why they feel far less cramped than other 3+2 trains.

You are indeed correct, which is why there is a very limited number of routes over which they can operate. So they are likely to remain on the LTV until they are life-expired, or more probably the line is electrified.

Such units (non-standard width) wouldn't be built these days, as it would minimise their re-lease value.

 

Surprisingly, the Network Rail 'Wessex routes' business plan proposed gauge clearance of Portsmouth - Cardiff to allow 165/6 to be used on the route.

Possibly overtaken by events now, (if the 11 x 4 car new trains is correct), but it does show that other options than permanent use on LTV are theroretically being considered...

Paul

Less cramped than other 3+2 seats? If you haven't got any arms perhaps, as that's the sort of human body the seats are designed for. Outside the peaks, no-one ever sits in the middle of the rows of three - unless they are a small child. The extra width in the coach body really doesn't make that much of a difference.


I don't call a third of the Cotswold service a "sprinkling", when it was more like a sixth a few weeks ago. And I will be amazed if the 17.51 from London switches from an Adelante to an HST when the last few 180s disappear shortly. It's always a Turbo now as soon as they are short of 125mph sets for the evening peak.

Turbos were already inadequate for anything but the really off-peak trains on the Cotswold Line in the last few years of Thames - and offered a far poorer passenger environment than the 168s and 170s in use elsewhere by then - but Thames had nothing else to offer, something that FGW made great play of when it took over, bringing in Adelantes with great fanfare within a matter of months.


Try all year round. Like when the system refuses to heat up at all early on winter mornings, or the centre coaches I walked through today and last week that were like saunas.
 

Where were you looking? The textured seat mouldings have dirt in every crevice and every wall and ceiling panel has dirt on - because no-one seems to be bothered tackling it, on the basis it's all going to get spray-painted over soon anyway.

I wouldn't defend Thames, because from the moment they knew the franchise was gone, they just gave up, and the fabric they ordered for their refit programme was useless and wore out instantly but in their current state - and interior configuration - Turbos just aren't suitable for the Cotswolds, expect perhaps the halts stoppers, where most passengers get on and off between Oxford and Moreton anyway.

If the 166s were four-car, configured internally like a Chiltern Clubman or an XC 170, then I would have few problems with them on the Cotswold Line off-peak - but as three-car sets, with mainly 3+2 suburban seats, they aren't up to journeys that take as long as London-Worcester. Roll on new 172s/Spanish/Chinese DMUs, which, it is to be hoped, will bridge the gap in quality between a Turbo and an HST, even with tombstone seats.

Like I said, I reserve judgement on the Cotswold services. I would be fairly happy with a Turbo for many intermediate journeys on the line but would certainly be cheesed off to arrive at Paddington and find I had to travel to Hereford on one.


My impression from regular travel with Thames was that they had given up the moment they were awarded the franchise. It always gave the impression of being an operation that cut costs, staffing and "frills" (read "essentials") such as cleaning and interior maintenance to the bone in order to hoover as much money out of the franchise as possible. A symptom of this was the tin-pot, p*ssbag customer information system they installed at Oxford has made catching a train there a case of "multiple guess" for much of the last ten years; it must have confused the hell out of elderly and occasional travellers. Although I never used Thameslink as-was, I have read various comment pieces in the railway press suggesting that Go Ahead's approach to that service was much the same. It made my blood boil a while ago when I read an interview with Keith Ludeman (Go Ahead boss) in which he asserted that it was a shame they had lost the franchise because "Thames Trains was one of the best". All of which goes to show, in my mind, that bus operators do not necessarily make good train operators: Go Ahead still run a superb bus service in the form of the Oxford Bus Company but could never get it right running the local train service!

To be fair to TT (aka Go-ahead) their franchise was on of diminishing subsidy, not surprising there were cost cuttings after all "there has to be a nice drop of bubbly at the share holders meeting"

The thing is, Govia (Go-ahead and Keolis/SNCF) run LM, SN and SE - vastly improving all three (ignoring the proposed SE cuts and LM).

I find 150 seats (3+2) more comfortable than Thames Turbos!

Off peak, noone really sits in the middle seats on any 3+2 stock. I read once that in the USA, they designed the outer seat out of three to be rock hard and the middle seat to be realy comfy. Thus, commuters moved into the middle seat and standing passengers sat on the outer seat (more comfortable than standing). Hopefully FGW will not do this!

I agree with Willc about a 4 car 2+2 unit for off peak Cotswold trains. Also use them for Worcester commuter services and halts train. (and while we are building them - rustle up a few to improve the comfort on Worcester - Brighton/Southampton/Weymouth trains!

I agree to a certain extent that Thames Trains wasn't exactly the most ambitious of operators. It was quite content to rest on its laurels most of the time, and the thought of ever doing anything that was risky in the short term but might be beneficial in the long term was always frowned upon. A publicity soundbite of 'First choice train operator in Berkshire' (or something like that) probably sums it up! It may well be that lack of ambition cost them the franchise as First were able to offer two bids, the higher of which (eventually the winner but at the cost of taking the franchise back into subsidy) was the one which included the use of Adelantes on services to Oxford and the Cotswolds.

To be fair to them though, the CIS system was pretty revolutionary at the time and represented a large investment of ^3m at the time. Many stations that had never had any PA or screens suddenly received it, but being one of the first (if not THE first) to have a real-time automated system of that nature meant that there were always going to be problems with it. The FGW CIS systems introduced at Reading and other stations at the turn if the decade no-doubt benefited from the lessons learned from the Thames system.

Also, a large amount of management time and resources went into dealing with the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove crash from late 2000 - don't forget it was a small employer of only around 1000 staff.

That being said, cleaning was haphazard at times - there were no cleaning staff on at Paddington after 9pm so all the night trains went around slowly gathering litter ending up a right state. Also, windows were being badly scratched but Thames were very reluctant to spend the money fitting CCTV or regularly replacing the plastic films covering the glass.

Nicely put!  :D


It's a long time since I read the Cullen report so my memory may be failing me, but I recall that Thames' driver training procedures were severely criticized (although Railtrack also came in for censure on several levels as well). Without wishing to sound simplistic, I can't feel too much sympathy for TT having to devote management time and attention to the aftermath of the crash. Some management time and resources being devoted to actually training staff how to drive trains out of Paddington before the accident might have prevented it in the first place.

And at long last... the refresh programme. Buried in Modern Railways' review of the December timetables is some stuff about diagram changes on assorted Thames Valley services in the morning and evening peaks to free up a three-car Turbo set to go through the workshop.

Among these is making permanent a change I was unaware of previously - since I never bother to look at the destination labels in the windows. The 17.51 (becomes 17.50 from december) to Worcester has apparently been calling at Maidenhead (18.09) since September. Will be quite handy for me if I'm visiting friends in Maidenhead on a weekday.

As a result, Maidenhead passengers have apparently transferred their affections to this service from the 17.36 Paddington-Oxford, so this will be cut from a six-car to four-car Turbo formation from December as part of the shake-up.

Yes - I believe it usually stops at the recently extended down main platform.

I was quite baffled the other week, I had just missed the 17:42 for Bourne End so looked the departure boards to see the 17:51 first stop maidenhead, it is better to use the 17:51 as the 17:42 gets full with passangers going to Slough and has a reasonable conection time for the branch formed by the ex 17:42 Padd

Yes it does stop Plt 1 Maidenhead

I must say i've never noticed that.

Platform 10, 1750 Paddington - Maidenhead arriving at 1809. 19 minutes is quite impressive for most commuters I suspect!!

A sensible move as the 17:50ex Paddington was one of the lightest loading HST's departing in the evening peak, so this all helps to spread the loadings out.

I assume the journey time has been slowed down for this then.

In light of reading btlines post, above, I suggest this call is cut. It is quite obviously making the cotswolds line unattractive to people in Worcester as the train is 1 or 2 minutes slower.

And more seriously, I doubt it has any impact - trains queue to get into Reading as it is, this has a clear run in as I believe it uses the down main at Maidenhead

19 minutes 26.25 miles start stop average 82 mph not that fast!

You may laugh about the 2 minutes. But when you combine that the additions of "only two minutes" have been going on for years, it does make a difference.

I asked as the train has been retimed earlier from Padd.

Considering it only takes the train 57 minutes to get to Oxford its nothing to cry about.

On trips between Honiton - Reading VIA Basingstoke you change from a SWT 158/159(?) onto a grubby little 'Thames Turbo' which is covered in 'Metro' newspapers and with it's broken display screens.  You chug away on the 'Thames Turbo' as the SWT heads away to Waterloo!

Also mentioned in the Maidenhead Advertiser (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-13600-addition-rush-hour-train-now-on-timetable/):