DMU cascade

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

See comments in other posts re suitablity for Salisbury to Southampton for instance. Most GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) locos were always banned on this section hence loco changes at Salisbury . So they will probably be most use on stopping services around Bristol. Whether the 166s, if they fit the loading gauge, with their 2*3 seating and  dodgy air conditioning  will really be suitable to replace the 158s between Bristol and Brighton remains to be seen I am sure the Cotswold line people can voice an opinion.

The CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) enhancement plan draft listed the gauge clearance work intended for the 165/166 fleet as including everywhere FGW^▸ (First Great Western) run in an area bounded by Cardiff, Portsmouth, Worcester, Penzance, Weymouth. (Including diversions such as Romsey to Fareham via Eastleigh.)  The only area not mentioned explicitly was Brighton.   'Other posts' about unsuitability always seem to ignore what NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have been saying about gauge clearances for around 5 or 6 years in a variety of route plans and RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy).  Anyway this is from the latest Jan 13 statement about CP5 enhancements:

Network Rail has assumed that the cascaded Class 165 and 166 units will operate over the
following parts of the Western, Wales and Wessex Routes:
 Core routes:
o Cardiff - Bristol - Exeter ^ Penzance (including Weston-super-Mare)
o Bristol to Portsmouth
o Westbury to Weymouth
o Bristol to Worcester (including Gloucester)
o Bristol to Severn Beach
o Swindon to Gloucester
o Swindon to Westbury
 Diversionary routes
o Bristol to Parkway via Avonmouth
o Castle Cary to Exeter
o Castle Cary to Exeter via Yeovil
o Romsey to Fareham via Eastleigh

Any chance we could go a bit easier on the supposed difficulties of this?

Paul

[Southern Stag]

Yes agreed they are a prized asset. However they come with a couple of draw backs. Like the Chiltern fleet they are not comaprtible elctrically with the 15X varients and they are also have a bigger loading gauge so are restricted to where they can run without extensive gauge widening.

The incompatibility with 15x units should be relatively easy to fix. In one of their traction brochures Porterbrook stated that it would be easy to convert 168s to be compatible with 15x units if desired so presumably it will be just as easy to convert 165 and 166 units.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Any chance we could go a bit easier on the supposed difficulties of this?

Paul

Amen! I was recently sorting out some old railway magazines and in one was photo taken in, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), 1991 or 1992 of a Class 165 at Darlington when on a tour of the northern PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive).

They do fit^!

[Rhydgaled]

The CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) enhancement plan draft listed the gauge clearance work intended for the 165/166 fleet as including everywhere FGW^▸ (First Great Western) run in an area bounded by Cardiff, Portsmouth, Worcester, Penzance, Weymouth. (Including diversions such as Romsey to Fareham via Eastleigh.)  The only area not mentioned explicitly was Brighton.   'Other posts' about unsuitability always seem to ignore what NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have been saying about gauge clearances for around 5 or 6 years in a variety of route plans and RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy). 

...

Any chance we could go a bit easier on the supposed difficulties of this?

Paul

Difficulties or otherwise, it does appear that NR/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are willing to spend the money on guage clearance works for things these days. However, just because 165s/166s to Portmouth is likely to be possible in future does not make them a suitable replacement for the class 158s currently used. I say target single class 150 diagrams for replacement by 165s/166s (which should at least be an improvement, unlike replacing 158s with 16xs) to push 150s and Pacers onto shorter-distance workings.

[paul7575]

[However, just because 165s/166s to Portmouth is likely to be possible in future does not make them a suitable replacement for the class 158s currently used.

Your opinion about end doors versus ⅓ ⅔ doors is well known.   

Doesn't necessarily mean the 158s are best suited to the high turnover of passengers you see on the Portsmouth - Cardiff line at stations like Southampton.  I don't think many FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services meet the planned dwell times.

Exactly the same point is regularly discussed with respect to TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express)'s inter-regional services isn't it?

Paul

[JayMac]

Boils down to the what the majority of passengers are doing journey wise. I contend that on the Cardiff-Portsmouth flow the vast majority of passengers are making relatively short commutes. End doors aren't ideal for such journeys. Take a look at a 158 loading an unloading in the peak at places like Bath Spa and Filton Abbey Wood. Dwell times there often exceed that which is allowed for in the working timetable.

⅓/⅔ doors make much more sense with current infrastructure and timetabling.

[paul7575]

There's a more detailed list of 165/6 clearance appeared now, in the finalised enhancement plan (link in the four track thread).  Brighton now appears, as does Poole... 

Now shown in two main phases:

Group 1 ^ Core routes (clearance required by December 2016)
 Bristol Temple Meads (BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI))) to Cardiff Central.
 Avonmouth to Bristol Parkway plus the Filton chords.
 BTM to Portsmouth.
 BTM to Worcester (including Gloucester).
 Bristol TM^‡(resolve) to Weymouth.
 BTM to Severn Beach.
 BTM to Portishead (*noting MetroWest Phase 1 proposals).
 BTM to Exeter St Davids (including Weston^super-Mare).
 Routes to and from Bristol St Phillips Marsh depot.
 Swindon to Standish junction.
 Swindon to Salisbury.
 Brighton to Portsmouth.
 Southampton to Poole.
Group 2 ^ additional routes to Exeter (clearance required by mid-2017)
 Exeter St Davids to Plymouth.
 Exeter St Davids to Barnstaple.
 Exeter St Davids to Axminster.
 Newton Abbot to Paignton.
 Castle Cary to Cogload Junction.
 Frome Loop and Hawkeridge Curve ^ Westbury.
 Routes to and from Laira depot.
Group 3 ^ Plymouth to Penzance (clearance requirement to be determined)
 Main line routes only.
 Gunnislake branch.
 St Ives branch.

[grahame]

Brighton now appears ...

But, interestingly, from Portsmouth.  The Cosham to Havant curve isn't listed (nor the rhubarb loop, come to that), whereas small loops and curves elsewhere are listed.

[ChrisB]

Where's BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI))?  ....BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) surely?

[Red Squirrel]

Apparently the two abbreviations are completely interchangeable, and anyone fool enough to suggest otherwise should be pilloried for their presumption.

[paul7575]

But, interestingly, from Portsmouth.  The Cosham to Havant curve isn't listed...

Well yes, but I think a glance out of a train window would suggest there are no possible clearance issues along there, its practically straight for a good way, and there are no line side structures such as platforms etc.  I'm pretty sure the only footbridge is well clear of the track. 

Paul

[Southern Stag]

Gunnislake branch is interesting. Currently the only 23m stock permitted along there are the single carriage 153s. The curvature after Bere Alston is quite tight.

[Rhydgaled]

[However, just because 165s/166s to Portmouth is likely to be possible in future does not make them a suitable replacement for the class 158s currently used.

Your opinion about end doors versus ⅓ ⅔ doors is well known.   

Doesn't necessarily mean the 158s are best suited to the high turnover of passengers you see on the Portsmouth - Cardiff line at stations like Southampton.  I don't think many FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services meet the planned dwell times.

Exactly the same point is regularly discussed with respect to TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express)'s inter-regional services isn't it?

Indeed it is the same point. My view is that nobody should have to stand for more than a short hop, and even then prefrably only in the peaks. Also passengers traveling for more than an hour should have a decent standard of comfort, not the tight squesse of things like ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) class 150s. Thus I find the wide ⅓ ⅔ doors providing extra standing room at the expense of comfort highly objectionable on the faster long/longish-distance services which have a fair gap between stops.

[JayMac]

What's a fair gap?

On the Cardiff to Portsmouth run there are only three gaps between stations of 20+ minutes (just two at peak times when Severn Tunnel Junction is served) out of 16/17 stops. The vast majority of the gaps are under 15 minutes.

[DavidBrown]

Gunnislake branch is interesting. Currently the only 23m stock permitted along there are the single carriage 153s. The curvature after Bere Alston is quite tight.

I would assume that it's more intended for Plymouth-Tavistock services. Of course, the new line will probably be built to the clearance standards, so it's only the existing St Budeaux to Bere Alston section that will need checking.