Electrification

[whole diary]

[G.Uard]

I think that the cross country route from Guildford to Tonbridge was originally built to a more generous loading gauge as part of a planned channel tunnel link.  The old GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) was, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), engineered to similar standards.  From what I can remember of Reading-Guildford; there are no sharp curves a la Bath Spa, to preclude 'turbo' operation.

[IndustryInsider]

From what I can remember of Reading-Guildford; there are no sharp curves a la Bath Spa, to preclude 'turbo' operation.

Turbo's are permitted through Bath Spa. They've also been to Weymouth and Llandudno on excursions over the years, so although their gauge is a limiting factor, it isn't that limiting.

[ReWind]

A few years back Turbo's used to operate BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI))-Oxford direct services via Bath Spa, Chippenham & Swindon, so they are cleared here!

[Electric train]

  Hay can you all keep your thieving hands off of our 165/6 as we don't have enough of them in the Thames Valley as it is 


 

[inspector_blakey]

Well, you can keep your hands off the 165s and 166s unless you send us something to replace them. Hmm, how about class 50s and mark IIs... 

[tramway]

No, we'll keep the 50's as they'll support the 31's on the Brighton turn. 

[Steve44]

If the Paddington suburban services were electrified then Thames turbos could be sent everywhere to get rid of pacers and provide much needed capacity!

By the time that happens post Crossrail the Turbos will be life expired they are already 17 years old

What would you say their life expectancy is then? 142s must be getting on a bit?

[G.Uard]

I was only using Bath Spa as an example.

Having just experienced turbo travel from Reading to Hayes & Harlington, I was favourably impressed although interiors are a bit shabby.  Perhaps  we could swap the odd 150/2.

[inspector_blakey]

I probably risk wandering off topic here but...

All credit to FGW^▸ (First Great Western), the interiors of the turbos have improved significantly since the days of Thames Trains: no refurbishment work had been carried out by Thames since they were built, as far as I could tell (the seats were still upholstered with the old NSE^▸ (Network South East) moquette). However, that wasn't the main problem: they were simply badly neglected. Trains entered service at Oxford knee-deep in litter, virtually all the windows were etched, and there was often graffiti on the seats, walls and bulkheads. I recall a trip from Oxford through to Bristol on a unit where one of the hopper windows had been fixed shut using sellotape but kept falling open. It was January and very, very cold...

Travelling on a 165/166 these days is a much-improved experience, and hopefully will be improved further by the refurb (anyone know when this is supposed to start yet?). The main bug-bear is that the air conditioning on the 166s never seems to work during the summer.

[willc]

To be fair to Thames, in their dying days. they did carry out a very basic smartening-up of the 166s, which also got a new paint job, but beyond seat covers that wore very badly and new carpets, that was about it.

Certainly no attempt to rectify the problems with the air conditioning, which on 166210 was doing a fine job tonight of sucking in fumes on the 17.51 London-Worcester when running in place of an HST^▸ (High Speed Train). It is to be hoped that when the long-heralded 165/166 refresh finally happens that the a/c problems aren't ignored yet again and that the underfloor kit isn't neglected either. The transmission sounded pretty laboured while trying to get up speed from station stops.

[inspector_blakey]

Could have been the driver "nursing" the power to avoid wheelslip due to poor adhesion - now that it's started drizzling after several dry days the railhead may well be pretty greasy.

[Ollie]

Travelling on a 165/166 these days is a much-improved experience, and hopefully will be improved further by the refurb (anyone know when this is supposed to start yet?). The main bug-bear is that the air conditioning on the 166s never seems to work during the summer.

Starts during the new timetable, but I know that the current 07:02 from Maidenhead (which is a service from Bedwyn) will not be calling at Maidenhead in the new timetable, this is due to the service being one turbo instead of two coupled up, and I have been told this is to allow for the Turbo refresh programme.

[chrisoates]

Could have been the driver "nursing" the power to avoid wheelslip due to poor adhesion - now that it's started drizzling after several dry days the railhead may well be pretty greasy.

Has it ever been analysed how much/if bend greasers contribute to wheel slip ?

[willc]

Could have been the driver "nursing" the power to avoid wheelslip due to poor adhesion - now that it's started drizzling after several dry days the railhead may well be pretty greasy.

Don't think so, just sounded rough, as did 209 tonight, though after 15 years of being hammered that's probably not surprising.

[eightf48544]

Could have been the driver "nursing" the power to avoid wheelslip due to poor adhesion - now that it's started drizzling after several dry days the railhead may well be pretty greasy.

Has it ever been analysed how much/if bend greasers contribute to wheel slip ?

In theory they are flange greasers designed to grease the inside of the flange where it rubs the rail going round a curve. Inner rail? (I was never much good at forces and vectors)? Thus grease should not get onto the the tread of the wheel or the railhead. There used to be one at Farringdon on the Circle/MET and from what I recall the railhead seemed reasonably clean whilst the inside of the rail had grease all along. I also recall going round from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East when the lubricators weren't working the screech was horrendous.