Great Western Coffee Shop

There have been some suggestions that Networkers displaced by cascaded EMUs will take over Portsmouth-Cardiff.  However, it turns out that can't happen:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%203%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20and%20depots/network%20rus%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20-%20draft%20for%20consultation.pdf
Page 45 shows where 166s can run.  As there are red sections between Portsmouth and Cardiff it means that clearance isn't possible for 166s on that route.

THat's only for 166s, not both 165/6s....

They're obviously different maps as I note that 166s aren't cleared for the Chiltern route, while 165s obviously are!

Oh, and it's page 44 not 45 - the page numbers are at the top of each page, for some reason!

Maybe 166 clearance automatically means 165 clearance but not vice versa.

This is only the case at present. Gauge clearance work could be carried out if it was deemed necessary.

There are some very curious things in that diagram - cleared to run from Craven Arms to Llandrindod Wells, but clearance issues to get to Craven Arms.   Then the line to Llanelli should be clear in theory; no gauge infringement, but you'll foul if you go west or east beyond Swansea ...

That doesn't work - because the map is showing no clearance for 166s on Chiltern, but we know 165s are cleared...

I don't think you understood.  What I was saying is

166 clearance = line a, line b, line c
165 clearance = all 166 cleared lines plus line d.

Sorry, now I don't understand.....

Looking at that map, I don't see any Line a, b, c or d.....

They are example lines not referring to a line on the map.

I now understand - but what makes you think that?

Can you even explain for sure why a line should be cleared for one & not the other? If not, surely you are just guessing?

I was guessing at the time but have found out why the 166s are not cleared for the Chiltern 165 route.  For clearance between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham tripcocks must be fitted.  The 165/0s have these but the 165/1s and 166s do not.

OK, that covers the LU section - but the 166s aren't cleared for the High Wycombe route either - all the way to Banbury it seems too, but the map isn't lasrge enough scale to be sure.

So, what do you reckon the reason is there?

i dont think they would be willing to split the fleet, but exmouth would probably be a good line for them

It is strange that back in the days of Thames Trains, CLPG had a class 166 charter from the Cotswold Line to Weymouth via the Castle Cary to Dorchester line that is shown in red. I understand that there were no clearance problems except where the train had to pass through Yeovil Pen Mill at no more than 10 mph due to the very tight platform clearance.

Maybe some alreration has been made subsequently to the 166 fleet since that excursion to make them fail that route?

Or even - some change to that line maybe? It was some years ago...

or the very tight platform clearance could now be deemed unacceptable

There's a Pacer related clearance issue on the Blackburn-Clitheroe line that sounds similar.  Pacers can get to Clitheroe BUT they can't manage anything like Sprinter speeds on that section and consequently a Pacer would take 20 minutes+ longer and isn't officially cleared, eventhough it would get there unlike on the Buxton line, where Pacers also aren't cleared (this is because the gradient is too steep for a Pacer and would likely cause a Pacer to roll backwards when trying to move off without a driver error.)

Also special rules apply for excursions.  A 2007 rail excursion heading for the Heart of Wales line was halted before it got the HOW line because it was class 67 hauled and 67s aren't allowed on the Heart of Wales line without special Network Rail dispensation.  After a significant delay it got switched for class 37s and it was later discovered that the operator had obtained Network Rail dispensation.  The special dispensation may mean that the train has to comply with different speed limits to the ones that normally apply.

As was the case with the Christmas/New Year blockade of Reading. HSTs were diverted to Waterloo and gauge clearance was a major issue on the line from Waterloo through Staines, Virginia Water and Chertsey to West Weybridge. There was no way that the HSTs could run at line speed on this route - I know - I was on one. We crawled through many stations at no more than 10mph.

Or maybe as Chiltern dont actually own any 166 they have never bothered to check the guage clearance for that route.  I know 165 and 166 are almost identical but until you actually send one down a route you cant be 100% sure everything will be OK. 

I'm fairly certain that 166's ran on the Chiltern Line back in 1994 when Marsh Bridge at Didcot was replaced over that Easter meaning a 2-hourly direct service from Oxford to Paddington calling at High Wycombe ran for several days.  Also, I don't remember crews being given specific instructions not to take a 166 over that route last Christmas, which I would have though they would have been given how allocation mistakes can sometimes happen.

Again, as we discussed recently, just because a route isn't currently certified doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to start ripping up platform edges, and even if they do it doesn't mean that it's nothing that a few thousand pounds might sort out.

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).

As a mere passenger, why on earth did the 165s and 166s get built to a non-standard size in the first place?

I suppose that the same comment applies to the platforms out of Waterloo - I remember travelling on an HST from Waterloo to Reading during some engineering diversions ten(?) years ago and being appalled by the diddly-dum slow speed. I'd assumed it was because we were following a stopping train (which we were). Perhaps we were following a stopping train because the Southern wanted to get their passengers off the platforms before the HST ripped them up (the platforms that is). Anyway, why haven't the platforms been (gradually) rebuilt to a standard size - they seem to get new edging at regular enough intervals.

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.)

A 165, 166 (plus similar electric units) have both the wider and longer carriage, making them non-standard so needing extra clearance.  I imagine this was done to get maximum capacity for platform lengths (3+2 seating isn't really practical in a narrower carriage.)

Didn't West Weybridge become Byfleet and New Haw in 1961?

Good video in 1946:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAwRKQ4Gh_g

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


Historically the Western Region has had a wider loading gauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge) than the other regions. Of course the track gauge in terms of the distance between the rails is identical at 4' 8.5" or 1435 mm, but the actual size of the vehicles that can operate is a little larger.

This goes back a very long way into the past, and I suspect may even be a hangover from Brunel's doomed broad gauge of 7' 0.25". Great Western steam locomotives were built to take advantage of the wider loading gauge, with large outside cylinders at the front end which were (and indeed still are on the rare occasions when Network Rail gauging engineers make a mistake in clearing the route for a steam charter) infamous for clipping platforms.

The HST fleet is more or less "go everywhere", since it was designed by BR to operate all over the country it conforms to a fairly standard loading gauge for rolling stock. However the 165/166 fleet was designed by BR for operation solely within the confines of the WR, and therefore it makes sense to take advantage of the more generous loading gauge to give a bit more space internally. 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).

Frankly this whole thread is a bit of a ridiculous storm in a teacup - although CDF-PMH may not currently be fully cleared for Turbo operation, significant portions of it are already, and the modifications that would be necessary to allow the entire route to be cleared may well be fairly trivial in most cases - as vacman said, adjusting platform edges or repositioning ground signals here and there, for example.

Are there any tunnels? They'll be costly...

There certainly are - Severn Tunnel and Twerton Tunnel for a start, but they won't be a problem. I'm not familiar enough with the route further east to comment.

But you're making the assumption that the Turbos would be out of gauge for the tunnels. I'd bet money that they would not be and the issues are likely to be far more minor and tractable than reworking entire tunnels. After all, as pointed out above, Turbos have on occasion wandered far outside their natural habitat without problems.

What we're really saying here is that no one really knows for sure what work would be needed on which line, aren't we? -:)

That's an entirely fair comment, although I reckon there are gauging engineers at NR who either know the answer already or will be able to find out relatively easily.

The main thrust of my argument is that the OP'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.

There are 2 loading gauges static and dynamic.  Static is the envelope of the rail vehicle when stationary.  The dynamic is when the verchil is on the move and speed comes into play with dynamic loading guage also the cant of the track has to be taken into account.  Also although not gauge envelope the unsprung mass on each axle and the axle loading has to be allowed for.

As Industry Insider said just because a unit is not cleared for a route does not mean it can not be.

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



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.

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 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

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 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.

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.  :D :D

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.

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

In the original RSSB 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 route plans for the relevant areas for the last three years or so.

Paul

It may very well have been, but ultimately, the RUS 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.

In addition to, not instead of.

There's no way a TOC will want to run both types & have to depot / service both types in one depot....

What poppycock!

FGW already has different fleets allocated to one depot.

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

Is there space for another shed?

So, ChrisB, first you say there's no way a TOC will want to service different types in one depot, when FGW (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....

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, and if you read a few years worth in hindsight many things in them do seem to happen...

Paul

The point I'm driving now is that the TOC won't be paying - the DfT will.

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


me too.


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

Not necessarily.  There wasn't a GW 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, is still only in draft form, but the relevant business plans have always reflected what was going on at the time...

Paul 

i think exeters great work on the 142 fleet and the increase in reliability is proof that having a designated place for certain units works

As has been said subsequently, highly unlikely that a mix of 158s and Turbos would be working that route, given the completely different interiors.

And while it might be nice to think so, I would be astonished if whoever happens to be operating services around Bristol come 2016 would be allowed to hang on to all the go-anywhere 158s after an influx of GW-loading gauge Turbos - the 158s are simply too useful elsewhere and there will be a great many Turbos looking for a new home out of a Thames Valley fleet of almost 60 sets.


In which case, why would anyone bother to think of mentioning clearing the route all the way to Portsmouth for Turbos?



Some things happen, others don't and route business plans, to quote Network Rail, "reflect and build upon the Route Utilisation Strategies". They are not some separate entity.

As for the idea that  that will probably come as news to the former staff of the Strategic Rail Authority, who produced a GW RUS in 2005, which, among other things, gave us the high-density HST.

My point really was that I see Turbos as being in addition to 158s on a franchise wide basis. The cascade down from the new Thameslink fleet opens up lots of possibilities and, truth be told, none of us know how the fleets will finally shakedown.

My belief is that the Greater Western Franchise needs additional capacity in the west, particularly around Bristol, so I would hope that a cascade of Turbos doesn't mean simply a carriage for carriage swap with 158s. As for one TOC using two differing types of unit on one route, well, that already goes on in a number of places. The issue of seat reservations is not insurmountable either.

CDF-PMH 158s can be strengthened to 4 or 6 car when needed. Cascaded down to other routes within the GW franchise (with maybe some becoming excess to requirements for other TOCs - particularly Northern - to snap up). That cascade then gives more options for 150s and 153s (again releasing some for use elsewhere in the country). And finally, hopefully sees the end of 142/3s running on mainlines and relegate their use to all but the shortest of branch lines.

That's my two penn'orth. YMMV   ;)

No-one said it doesn't happen but there are usually particular reasons, eg the different flows and loadings across the day/platform lengths on the Cotswold Line. And without an expensive interior refit - and brake and cooling system modifications that would be required for that - Turbos won't be any more suited for the distances involved on Cardiff-Portsmouth than they are for London to Malvern and Hereford.


Not without spending more money on new seat shells with ticket pockets (or a fancy XC or Pendolino-style luggage rack display it's not (hence why you can reserve seats on Cotswold HSTs and 180s in the past but not on Turbo duties).

If the Cotswold Line goes over to 100 per cent IEP bi-mode operation, as noises from DfT indicate, and the Thames Valley branches were wired, and you passed over the Oxford-Banbury stoppers to Chiltern, then the entire current FGW Turbo fleet would be going spare, so a lot of go-anywhere 15X sets would be going anywhere but the West Country, indeed you could probably replace the lot in FGW-land, bar the 153s, with Turbos and have a capacity increase with just two basic types of dmu to worry about.

The issue of seat reservations is easily sorted by not having seat reservations on Cardiff-Portsmouth/Brighton services.

No need to abandon reservations completely. Just move to the reservation model already used by SWT, Southern and London Midland. Booked train, just not booked seat.

No expensive refit needed at all, and no problems when one type of rolling stock is substituted for another.

Seems to be a lot of if's these sets were primarily built as medium / high density commuter trains with a far from perfect adaption, the 166, for longer duration services on the Cotsworld and North Downs lines.
 
The 165/6's still have quite a number of years hard work in the TV, don't forget even after the wires go up sets will be needed for the branches, Basingstoke, Newbury / Bedwyns, North Downs.  By the time the wires are done the sets will be close on 30 years old, they would need a heavy overhaul the refresh has only realistically painted over the cracks (165 windows still do not work correctly)

That will be popular with all those who value knowing they will have a seat on a route noted for overcrowding at busy times.


Same comment re reservations - booked train indeed, can't be bothered with offering reservations more like. Great system if you've got sharp elbows, I suppose. As for no refit needed, I can't wait to hear the howls of outrage should people be asked to wedge themselves into those 3+2 seats for a Bristol-Southampton journey.


They are still a good few years younger than the 150s FGW is about to get. Wiring of the Thames Valley branches is surely going to feature as a bargaining chip in the FGW franchise bidding, and you might just as well send a dmu in from Westbury to cover Bedwyn. North Downs should be handed over to SWT or Southern and third rails go down (a change to be made at franchise break time, perhaps?) and if you're going to send Crossrail trains out to Reading, then why not wire to Basingstoke as well, which would also give you a Class 92-friendly alternative route for WCML container traffic at Southampton.

On which subject and which could have spin-off route clearance benefits for Turbos between Bristol and Southampton and north of Bristol, Network Rail is going to carry out a detailed study of all possible alternative routes for container traffic out of Southampton, in addition to the existing W10-cleared route via Oxford and the planned diversion route via Salisbury. If you're going to start knocking bridges about for vertical clearance, then a bit of extra lateral clearance is easily provided as well.

The DfT has stated that no more third-rail electrification will go down. Something to do with EU regs?

Link please?

Many mentions in the Railway magazines obver the past months....

There's been a few proposals to extend 3rd rail electrification from the Merseyrail network.  Most of these have been rejected due to being classed as non-economically viable.  A proposed Ellesmere Port-Helsby extension was apparently rejected as Shell objected the line going past their Stanlow refinery having 3rd rail for safety reasons.

Really?  I can't remember any myself - though you're sure they're not just pulling stories from the railway forums?  :P 

I certainly can't find any official statements to the contrary.  Only the long standing comment that only in-fill schemes would be considered.  Hence the ability to electrify Wokingham to Redhill being mentioned several times on here in the past to possibly draw on the Class 319's dual voltage abilities.  It would be a shame if no more 3rd rail electrification was permitted under any circumstances as you state.

I think you're right about in-fill, but would that distance of the North Downs be seen as in-fill? If so, then I'm happy to withdraw my comment.


hmmm - and mis-hearing the Customer Services Director at Chiltern say that the Oxford-Bicester Town TWA application include all the works necessary for EAst-WEst Rail to Bletchley?......possibly! (see current June issue of Modern Railways, page 77)

Draft RUS' always list a few different options for evaluation and consultation which could be why different people are thinking different things will happen.  The recent electrification RUS only suggests the Turbos will go on to other suitable routes.

I would agree that 158s running in multiple would seem to best for Portsmouth-Cardiff.  I would imagine that if Turbos were put on that route they would be refurbished to a compromised commuter/long distance specification like some Desiros, which means a lot of passengers may prefer the older 158s, as long as there are more carriages.

Just thought - is that for all tracks or just overground tracks?  I can't imagine diesel or OHE being used for a new underground system.

Overground, I think

Call it infill, call it whatever you like, third rail will still be allowed where it is seen as a logical, limited extension of existing networks, hence Merseyside are pushing very hard to be allowed to lay third rail on Bidston-Wrexham themselves, since they don't believe Network Rail's price tag. No-one in their right mind would put 25kv wires up to replace the last outposts of class 171 diesel operation by Southern and I can't imagine anyone would want to work with random bits of 25kv ac and 750v dc between Reading and Redhill, given all the third rail that is already down, not least at the key junction stations.

It might well be one of those arguments that could be used either way.  If the DfT want to electrify it then it's in-fill and permissible, and if they don't want to then they could use it as an excuse not to do so.  It is quite a long stretch to be described as in-fill, though I suppose technically it would be two separate in-fill schemes; the 11 miles from Wokingham Junction to Aldershot South Junction and the 17 miles from Shalford Junction to Reigate.  It doesn't sound such a long section when you describe it like that.

Perhaps they could reduce the signalling headways between Wokingham and Guildford at the same time.

The electrifcation RUS stated that third rail would be used for those sections of lines entirely WITHIN the existing third rail network, such as the North Downs line.  However it has electrifcation type as 'to be decided' on some routes immediately outside the 'third rail area', such as Redbridge and Eastleigh to Salisbury, and it also explains in the footnotes that the electrifcation type for that line would be business case dependent.

So I suggest that unless there has been a very recent new embargo applied, third rail can still be used for both infill and extensions.  After all it's only a few days ago that I was told a NR employee (at the Reading rebuild displays) said that third rail would be installed on certain of the new platforms at Reading - that must count as an extension presumably?

Paul

Doesn't Crossrail count then? It will basically be a new underground system with OHLE at 25 kV...

Paul

I assume it is only for the new platform adjacent to the current 4a and 4b. There aren't plans to electrify the re-opened tunnel or from New Junction or Spur Junction (can never remember which it is) into the rest of the station are there?

No definitely the new relief line platforms, presumably dependent on if they can be accessed from the underpass, not all of them can be according to the various track plans knocking about...

Paul

I would imagine that it would be easier to run 165/166s over former GWR lines rather than southern lines which were built to the broad gauge standard. In the west I think (but I could be wrong) that would basically be everything except:

Barnstaple, Exmouth and Gunnislake branches (plus Okehampton if that ever reopens)
Salisbury - Portsmouth Harbour
Dawlish Warren - Teignmouth (this section of line was only doubled after the end of the broad gauge in around 1906)
Swindon - Newport

It is noticeable on a driver's eye view I have that the bridges and tunnels on the Westbury - Weymouth line are quite generous in width even where there's dual tracks. I appreciate there's more to gauging than how 19th century engineers laid out their lines though. The structures that I'd guess would be trickiest for 165/166s on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route would be the Severn, Patchway and Southampton Tunnels. But that may have changed.

That "broad gauge" theory would also include the western end of the Berks & Hants line as the final stretch from Westbury to Cogload Junction was opened in stages between 1900 and 1906.

It gets FGW services on Sundays.

See timetable 34: http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/TTs%20Apr%20%2711/GW11M_TT34_WEB_V1.pdf

Ahh, but between 7pm and 7:06pm on which date?  :P :P :P

I'll get my coat.  ;D ;D ;D

Oh dear this could become a Morecombe and Wise type sketch with the Magna Carta signed just before lunch and the Battle of Waterloo being followed by dinner.

What do you think of it so far?

Sorry way off topic.

On the subject of 165/66s how are they faring after 20 years of pretty intensive service. The longevity of the HSTs is much trumpeted - is it a similar story for the 165/66s or do they just look better than they really are?

They seem to be working ok each time i have been on them, but in the case of teh class 166's as has been reported before teh air con does need work.

Chilterns class 165's are lovely to travel on, certainly wouldnt mind if they ordered some more class 172's perhaps for the London Marylebone - Oxford services and displaces some class 168's for the Alyesbury route so that we could have a few of them down in Bristol (providing they fit of course.)

Mind you, i doubt they would fit  at the platforms at Bristol TM  which are under the large roof.

I don't know which platforms they used but there was an Oxford-Bristol TM through service operated by 165/66s for a while.

Indeed ... and there were timetable proposals to extend them into Oxford - Weston-super-mare too ...

Wouldnt mind seing a retun of the Oxford - Bristol services, might be a good idea too if they ran to Weston Super Mare.

Chiltern plan more loco push-pull working for Birmingham services to release 168s for Oxford, not more dmus.

The 168s have a different body profile to the 165/166s, as the 168 is basically a class 170 configured to couple to 165/166 type-stock, so the body is five inches narrower.

And the extra width in the 165/166 body is at waist height, not at solebar level, so unlikely to be any reason why they would not fit on the platforms in the Temple Meads train shed, given that HST/Voyager vehicles are allowed, unless something below the floor fouls the platform walls.


Was normally worked only by two-car 165s. If Oxford was short of a two-car set for other duties the Bristols were liable to get cancelled. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80rvyApl0M&feature=player_embedded


I've said it before, so I'll say it again. For all the people that say what a good thing it would be, the actual numbers using those trains when they existed were low, often pitifully so. Such a service would only make sense if there were intermediate stations, unlikely to be served by high-speed services, such as Milton Park, Wantage Road, Wootton Bassett and Corsham. Current connections at Didcot certainly leave a lot to be desired much of the time but there has never been a groundswell of opinion demanding the return of direct trains, nor was their loss much mourned.
 

There were definitely restrictions on which platforms at Temple Meads could be used too - can't remember exactly what they were but at least two platforms were no-go areas.

Possibly platforms 3 and 5. They have the greatest curvature.

Apart from the poor business experience of the Oxford/Bristol Turbo service I understood that a major problem was fitting the services into the paths between Didcot and Bristol. 90 mph Turbos got in the way of 125 mph HSTs. This was also at the time when FGW was introducing the Adelantes on the Paddington/Cardiff service to increase that service frequency. All this resulted in pathing problems that were difficult to solve so the poor economics Turbo service had to go!

That, and the DfT failed to include it in the current franchise spec, so FGW had to fund it themselves if they wished it to run.

165/6s are in not to bad a condition, but comparing to Chilterns are not as well kept.

They are better than they were a few years ago, not nearly as many with an engine down, or engines knocking and kicking out black smoke. Still makes me laugh how they strain when fully loaded and, as on Friday, as soon as it rains they struggle to get a grip.