Rolling Stock discussion - Cardiff to Portsmouth

[whole diary]

[GWR 158]

How many class 158s currently work this route?

[grahame]

How many class 158s currently work this route?

Hello ... and welcome to the forum.

"Very few" is about the best answer I can give you, with Turbos (class 165 and 166) pretty much standard these days.  A case of "love 'em or hate 'em" as the turbos are pretty good for services that have lots of people getting on and off in large numbers at frequent stops along the way, but less good with their seating 2+3 and no corridor between units for people travelling longer distances

158s turn up from time to time on connected / linked routes - Westbury to Swindon (Gloucester linked services), for example though during lockdown data is sparse as many of us ain't travelling ...

Edit to add ... others know more than I do:

Not quite as luxurious but you can still find the odd one or two 158 diagrams on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line. They?re not done on the line yet.

[phile]

How many class 158s currently work this route?

There is a pair each day

[Timmer]

165/166s are back to running as 3 car only. No need for five car combination at present.

[grahame]

Technical forum note - I was getting confused between two threads here with the same title ("Rolling Stock"), so I have taken the liberty of renaming them (both!). When doing so, I took the opportunity to add in a bit more detail so that when they come up in new or recent post compendia we know what line's being talked about more easily.  Thread and post content not modified.

[DaveHarries]

Just a passing thought but I wonder if the Cardiff - Portsmouth services would be better with new bi-mode (ie. hybrid) rolling stock. Don't get me wrong: I like the 165s & 166s but I wonder if long-distance work is a good use of them. Also if the Filton four-track was electrified then taking might taking advantage thereof be a good idea?

Dave

[Rhydgaled]

I wonder if the Cardiff - Portsmouth services would be better with new bi-mode (ie. hybrid) rolling stock. Don't get me wrong: I like the 165s & 166s but I wonder if long-distance work is a good use of them. Also if the Filton four-track was electrified then taking might taking advantage thereof be a good idea?

I don't wonder - I am adamant that long-distance regional express work is NOT a good use for the 165s and 166s (or anything else with 'double-width' doors).

There are well over 300 DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) in Great Britain with single-width doors, many of which will need replacing in the next 5-10 years. I think now is the time to be looking at a desigining a worthy sucessor to these fleets and, unless we decide not to decarbonise our railways, these will need to be capable of electric operation*. The basic bodyshell design would be the same, but (for example) ScotRail are aiming to eliminate diesel by 2035 and thus the self-power mode on the Scottish units would be battery or hydrogen whereas the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) units might still need diesel.

* by this I mean passive provision, as a minimum, for installation of a pantograph, transformer etc. - on some units it may be considered better to leave the pantograph off initially due to running on routes with little or no electrification to start with, while others will want to have third rail shoes fitted from the outside. I would also build a number of electric-only versions of the same thing to suplement the class 444s and allow SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) to use appropriate stock on Portsmouth fasts rather than more wide-door stock.

[Clan Line]

I wonder if the Cardiff - Portsmouth services would be better with new bi-mode (ie. hybrid) rolling stock. Don't get me wrong: I like the 165s & 166s but I wonder if long-distance work is a good use of them. Also if the Filton four-track was electrified then taking might taking advantage thereof be a good idea?

I don't wonder - I am adamant that long-distance regional express work is NOT a good use for the 165s and 166s (or anything else with 'double-width' doors).

I'll totally agree that 165/6s are not suitable for regional express work - they are awful !!  BUT............ the only thing I do like about them is the double-width doors. There are parts of Portsmouth-Cardiff route which are not "regional express like" - Warminster to Bath for example, where you have stops every few minutes, the single width doors cannot cope with the traffic in the time allowed for the stop. Try getting on or off a 158 at Bath Spa at 5 pm !! Double (decent)-width doors at the end of the coaches would speed things up considerably, stepping up/down from the train is the slowest part, not moving down the aisle to get to the door.   

A new purpose built family of trains would indeed be the ideal solution. Perhaps some passenger centered thought could be applied to this.............a regional express does not require much 100mph + running so the new trains could be flat fronted, then it would be a simple job to have full corridor trains from 2 to 10 coaches long - just take a look at RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) for Salisbury and see how well SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) do this with their 158/9 fleet .  What a (bad) joke a 165 and a 166 coupled together is, but I suppose it goes with the 5 + 5 IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train)  !

Something that perhaps requires more serious thought - is third rail really that dangerous ?? Has anyone looked at "engineering" it safer ? Portsmouth-Cardiff could never justify OHLE, but perhaps third rail. Worting Jct to Exeter is another prime candidate. There must be a huge amount of third rail in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) if you just count track miles. What is the "casualty" rate per mile on 3rd rail compared to Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) ?

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[eightonedee]

Portsmouth-Cardiff could never justify Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE)

While I sympathise or agree with much in Clan Line's post, I am not sure about this.

My guess is that in most West European countries (Ireland excepted) routes of this standing have been electrified for years with Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE). If there is a place for bi-modes it is surely 3rd rail/Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) bi-mode.

Imagine how much easier it would be to cope with problems like the current problem with Hitachi A trains if all main line trains ran off Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) outside the current third rail network.

Is Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) much more expensive than third rail? I can understand third rail as a gap filler for the North Downs route or possibly the Hythe/Fawley Waterside route, but wouldn't it be better to have Over-Head Line Equiptment (OHLE) from Basingstoke to Exeter operated by bi-modes that could divert to Paddington via Reading if a relevant problem arose?

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[ellendune]

It is not just the safety issue though is it.

The reduced voltage means there are greater energy losses and there needs to be many more substations which all adds to the cost of installation and renewals. 

Add in the cost of rectifiers and the fact that the equipment is non standard and the costs increase. 

Is there also an inherent speed limit on 3rd rail?

I suspect in the short term adding on bits of 3rd rail might stack up but I thought we were supposed to be looking to the long term. 

[Clan Line]

I really find it very difficult to believe that the cost of third rail would be any more that the huge sums spent on the GW^▸ (Great Western) main line. Many of the negative points ascribed to third rail are really not much more that self-fulfilling prophecies. "non standard", "costs increase"........ yes absolutely - mainly because the technology is sidelined and considered to be out dated............when perhaps it shouldn't be. Limited use of what is considered to be outdated technology will push the costs up.
We are talking about "regional express" working here; 5/6 car trains, 2500hp  90 mph max; not 10 cars, 7000+hp at 125 + mph (Class 374 16 cars, 21000 hp !!!). This is not much more than steam powered performance - perhaps old fashioned 3rd rail is worth looking at again.

(As a matter of interest, I used to work for a rectifier manufacturer until shiny plastic/aluminium killed off chrome plating and nobody wanted rectifiers any more - perhaps more 3rd rail could re-invent this business ?)

[ellendune]

I really find it very difficult to believe that the cost of third rail would be any more that the huge sums spent on the GW^▸ (Great Western) main line. Many of the negative points ascribed to third rail are really not much more that self-fulfilling prophecies. "non standard", "costs increase"........ yes absolutely - mainly because the technology is sidelined and considered to be out dated............when perhaps it shouldn't be. Limited use of what is considered to be outdated technology will push the costs up.

The UK^▸ (United Kingdom) doing more DC^▸ (Direct Current) electrification would still not make it standard as the rest of the world sees the future in AC. 

[grahame]

There may be some logic in minor infill 3rd rail - to a logical conclusion of a complete(ish) network.  For consideration:
* Oxted to Uckfield
* Reigate to Guildford
* Wokingham to Ash
* Ore to Ashford
* Totton to Fawley
* Basingstoke, Eastleigh and Redbridge to Salisbury

I understand that one may be underway:
* Kennington to Battersea

[ChrisB]

Kennington to Battersea?

Which line is that on then? :-)

Northern tube line?

[ellendune]

Kennington to Battersea?

Which line is that on then? :-)

Northern tube line?

Technically that's not 3rd Rail then - its 3rd & 4th! Its still DC^▸ (Direct Current) though.