Potential bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[whole diary]

[The SprinterMeister]

Am I right in thinking that the 158 aircon was built by a company on the Isle if Wight? Sure I've seen a panel under the seats that says, 'Temperature Ltd, Isle of Wight'

Correct as far as 158701-814 are concerned although not all 158's still have the original aircon installed. The Liebherr fitted ones are identifiable by having extra large grilles / vents on the roof over the passenger doors. This is a complete new system and not a revamp of the existing system (although the existing control panel is retained) and is as good as it gets where class 158 aircon is concerned. Not surprisingly all SWT^▸ (South West Trains) 158 / 159 have Liebherr kit fitted.

[Rhydgaled]

You cannot say class 158 is cheaper than the current DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) offerings as they are no longer being built today.

By cheaper I meant cheaper to run. Being lighter, they should use less fuel and cause less damage to the tracks, hence cheaper. Manufactring cost probablly wouldn't be much different, probably slightly more expensive once you've built a factory to build them.

The 158 with failed air-con that I was overheating on was an ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) unit (I think all their units are numbered higher than 158814). I was travelling on the Cambrian coast line at the time.

[The SprinterMeister]

You cannot say class 158 is cheaper than the current DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) offerings as they are no longer being built today.

By cheaper I meant cheaper to run. Being lighter, they should use less fuel and cause less damage to the tracks, hence cheaper. Manufactring cost probablly wouldn't be much different, probably slightly more expensive once you've built a factory to build them.

But as I keep telling you, you cannot build new units to the exact class 158 spec anymore as they don't meet the requirements for crashworthiness for new build stock. Therefore a 2012 version of 158 will probably weight the same or slightly more than class 172.

Newer units have newer common rail diesel engines. BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) era 15x all use variations of mechanically fuelled and governed 1980s truck engines. This combined with the ZF six speed transmission used on 172 will enable less fuel per mile to be used by the newer units.

[The SprinterMeister]

Anyway I'm glad we all seem to like 158's as they are the same external width as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) vehicles. So that sort of thing is what we all have to look forward to in FGW^▸ (First Great Western)-shire....

[Chris from Nailsea]

I like 158s - just to interject a comment here, if I may?

[The SprinterMeister]

I like 158s - just to interject a comment here, if I may?

Would you go to Paddington in one?

[JayMac]

I would. 

Regularly go Bristol TM^‡(resolve) - Waterloo in one. Perfectly acceptable.

[Temple Meads]

I would. 

Regularly go Bristol TM^‡(resolve) - Waterloo in one. Perfectly acceptable.

That is an SWT^▸ (South West Trains) unit though, the 159's and SWT 158's seem to have a bit more legroom over the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158's, which are a bit cramped for me (6ft 1in).

Still an OK ride though.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

  the trouble I cause eh? I don't mind being shot down when it's explained properly as you have done 

[Chris from Nailsea]

I like 158s - just to interject a comment here, if I may?

Would you go to Paddington in one?

Yes: I'd be happy to travel to Paddington in an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) one, from Nailsea.

I've done Nailsea to Taunton on an FGW 158 many times - a very comfortable journey. A journey in the opposite direction, even lasting twice or three times as long, would hold no fears for me.  

[Rhydgaled]

That is an SWT^▸ (South West Trains) unit though, the 159's and SWT 158's seem to have a bit more legroom over the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158's, which are a bit cramped for me (6ft 1in).

I tend to sit at table seats, which means I tend to avoid legroom problems. I agree the FGW 158s don't have enough legroom in airline though. I did Cosham to Cardiff on one in airline once and there was not nearly enough legroom. That's just a flaw with the layout of FGW sets though, not 158s themselves.

On the journey in question, I then boarded a 175 for onward travel to Haverfordwest. Much better legroom but the seats could have done with being softer, like the ones on the 158 I had left. The problems could easily have been the other way around, I expect I can't blame either on the class of unit.

If IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) coaches are going to be the same width as a 158's (which, though quite narrow, are only 0.03m narrower than alot of stock, including 175s) and three metres longer, trying to make them cover a wide area of the network is bound to be an expensive mistake isn't it?

[Ollie]

I did Brighton to Great Malvern then to Gloucester on a 158 and it was perfectly fine, my only complaint was no plug socket

[JayMac]

I tend to sit at table seats, which means I tend to avoid legroom problems. I agree the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158s don't have enough legroom in airline though. I did Cosham to Cardiff on one in airline once and there was not nearly enough legroom. That's just a flaw with the layout of FGW sets though, not 158s themselves.

Legroom is much worse at a table seat if someone is sat opposite though. Unintentional footsie often occurs. As for the 'airline' seats, some in each coach have greater legroom. Go for the ones behind the rows which have under seat equipment.  

[eightf48544]

If IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) coaches are going to be the same width as a 158's (which, though quite narrow, are only 0.03m narrower than alot of stock, including 175s) and three metres longer, trying to make them cover a wide area of the network is bound to be an expensive mistake isn't it?

There has been some very interresting corespondance in teh last couple of Modern Railways about what is the British loading gauge and the fact that a C1^▸ ((on coaches) National route restriction) vehicle (allege go most places gauge) may not clear a supposed C! route because apparently the physical clearances are shrinking.

I presumme what's meant by that is as work is done on lineside structres or new ones added they creep a few millimetres closer to the track.

We know that happened outside Padd after the realingement and before wiring when the King's safety valves hit one of the overbridges bridges due to the ballast being too deep. We've got the same thing at Taplow on the Main lines where the ballast is too high and therefore trains can't stop on the Main lines because of the high step up is deemed unacceptable.

[The SprinterMeister]

That is an SWT^▸ (South West Trains) unit though, the 159's and SWT 158's seem to have a bit more legroom over the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 158's, which are a bit cramped for me (6ft 1in).

I tend to sit at table seats, which means I tend to avoid legroom problems. I agree the FGW 158s don't have enough legroom in airline though. I did Cosham to Cardiff on one in airline once and there was not nearly enough legroom. That's just a flaw with the layout of FGW sets though, not 158s themselves.

The FGW 158's are on the same seating / table plan as they were under Wessex Trains. Some of them have Richmond seats and the others have refurbished OEM 158 seats. I think there may have been a bit of tinkering with the seat pitch at the ends to create priority seats for less mobile customers though.