Thames Turbos

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

Contained within the East Customer Panel minutes is the following info about the refresh programme, which seems to be cut back from what London Travelwatch were told, though 165s will keep first class. There now seems little prospect of a full air-con refit for the 166s - in addition to the details given below, a question was asked which got the following response:

2) Will there be a temperature control on the refurbished fleet? R.R replied that we would be spending some money on the air-conditioning, which will be a marked improvement, but to get a similar standard to that on Chiltern^s carriages you would have to spend a lot of money and unfortunately in the current climate we simply cant afford to.  The refurbishment is a ^6m franchise commitment, 1st Class will NOT be removed and 3+2 seating will remain.

Business Update
Presentation by Richard Rowland, Route Director (East)

Turbo refresh ^ confidential
^   Revised scope of work for 151 vehicles
^   Base proposition:    ^6.63 million   (c^44k per vehicle)
^   Stretch proposition:   ^7.13 million   (c^47k per vehicle)

^   Fuller refresh on the class 166 fleet
^   Lighter refresh on the class 165 fleet
^   To be completed at the depot in Reading

^   All vehicles in both fleets will receive the following:
^   Upgrade Passenger Information System (PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System))
^   Fitment of laminated glass
^   Cab refresh

Turbo refresh ^ PIS
^   Fully compliant with all UK^▸ (United Kingdom) legal requirements
^   Railway Group Standards
^   Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998
^   Technical Standard for Interoperability.
^   The PIS provides:
^   External Destination Indicator on front of each cab
^   Moving message displays in the passenger saloon of every vehicle
^   Automated announcements
^   GPS to control the PIS
^   Driver PA^▸ (Public Address)

Turbo refresh ^ 166 scope of works
^   Existing seats will be recovered or
^   Stretch refreshment - renewal of seat and sub frames. Existing vehicle layouts
^   Renewal of flooring in saloon, vestibules and toilets.
^   Renewal of First Class tables
^   Fit anti-graffiti film
^   Refresh of interior to include:
^   Painting of vehicle interior, including ceilings, wall panels, bulkheads, window  panels and toilets.
^   Fitment of poster frames and magazine racks
^   Renewal of toilet seat, toilet lid and coat hooks
^   Replacement of dado panels
^   Renewal of signage


Turbo refresh ^ 165 scope of works
^   Renewal of seat moquette on all seat bases and backs
^   Renewal of flooring in saloon, vestibules and toilets
^   Fit anti-graffiti film
^   Refresh of interior to include:
^   Painting of vehicle interior, including ceilings, wall panels, bulkheads, window panels and toilets.
^   Fitment of poster frames and magazine racks
^   Renewal of toilet seat, toilet lid and coat hooks
^   Renewal of signage

Turbo refresh ^works programme
^   Refresh works
^   Design/procurement phase: Spring 2009
^   Production phase: Summer 2009 to Spring 2010
^   PIS
^   Completion in Spring 2010
^   Funding not available for mock up

I am sure the units will be tider than they are now but I can not help but feeling that we are loosing out by not having the units refitted to better serve there roles but end up with the same as they are no but just with a slap of paint, a bit seat fabric and some lino .......... all avaialbe at Homebase or B & Q

[inspector_blakey]

At risk of making myself into a pariah, I honestly don't see too much wrong with the Turbos currently, with the exception of the air-conditioning problems on 166s in the summer. I think they suffer from a bad press in part because the loco-hauled trains of mk 2s are fondly remembered (and you never saw Inspector Morse getting off a Turbo!)

Just travelled on a 165 this evening and looking around me it was clean and tidy, the seats were in decent condition, no litter, no graffiti, clean floors, walls and bulkheads, reasonably comfortable. I was honestly trying to find fault but couldn't find any cause for complaint. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) keep them in immeasurably better condition than Th*m*s Tr**ns (and frankly, anyone who tries to persuade you that the bunch of cowboys at Go-Ahead running that franchise was any use is suffering from a severe case of rose-tinted spectacles) when seat covers were worn, torn or missing entirely, the bogs elegantly lived up to that name by often brimming with brown sludge, windows were heavily etched so you could hardly see out and the inside surfaces were either covered in graffiti or scratched to b*gg*ry by the vandals. The most inexcusable thing to my mind was that trains would enter service first thing in the morning knee-deep in litter having evidently not been cleaned or even litter-picked overnight.

It will certainly be welcome to see some modest improvements but I genuinely think that they are completely up to the job of inner/outer suburban work.

I reserve judgement on the Cotswold line services, but don't forget guys that not so long ago your service was nearly all Turbos (in their TT state of delapidation) sprinkled with the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train). Now it's the other way about!

[Btline]

I reserve judgement on the Cotswold line services, but don't forget guys that not so long ago your service was nearly all Turbos (in their TT state of delapidation) sprinkled with the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train). Now it's the other way about!

When a Turbo arrived for the 5.20 something at WOF today, a passenger had to run from the far end of the platform - she obviously has not realised that it will be a Turbo for the foreseeable future!

No-body should have to sit in a 3+2 service for more than an hour. (preferably <45 mins) That means - NO on Cotswold services!

[devon_metro]

Its better than under wonderful Network South East/TT

Passengers from Exmouth - Barnstaple have to travel on a 142 for nearly 2 hours, does that make it acceptable?

[Btline]

Its better than under wonderful Network South East/TT

Passengers from Exmouth - Barnstaple have to travel on a 142 for nearly 2 hours, does that make it acceptable?

A Pacer is different. No-body should have to travel in a Pacer for more than 2 minutes. (preferably < 1 mins)

[inspector_blakey]

When a Turbo arrived for the 5.20 something at WOF today, a passenger had to run from the far end of the platform - she obviously has not realised that it will be a Turbo for the foreseeable future!

No-body should have to sit in a 3+2 service for more than an hour. (preferably <45 mins) That means - NO on Cotswold services!

They were fine on the Bristol - Oxford services all those years ago (about 90 mins). Never found them unduly uncomfortable; the main problem was that the window catches weren't up the the job and they kept flying open! They seem to do that less these days. I think I'm right in saying that the 165 and 166 fleets are built to the more generous GW^▸ (Great Western) loading gauge, which might explain why they feel far less cramped than other 3+2 trains.

[John R]

You are indeed correct, which is why there is a very limited number of routes over which they can operate. So they are likely to remain on the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) until they are life-expired, or more probably the line is electrified.

Such units (non-standard width) wouldn't be built these days, as it would minimise their re-lease value.

 

[paul7575]

Surprisingly, the Network Rail 'Wessex routes' business plan proposed gauge clearance of Portsmouth - Cardiff to allow 165/6 to be used on the route.

Possibly overtaken by events now, (if the 11 x 4 car new trains is correct), but it does show that other options than permanent use on LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) are theroretically being considered...

Paul

[willc]

Less cramped than other 3+2 seats? If you haven't got any arms perhaps, as that's the sort of human body the seats are designed for. Outside the peaks, no-one ever sits in the middle of the rows of three - unless they are a small child. The extra width in the coach body really doesn't make that much of a difference.

I reserve judgement on the Cotswold line services, but don't forget guys that not so long ago your service was nearly all Turbos (in their TT state of delapidation) sprinkled with the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train). Now it's the other way about!

I don't call a third of the Cotswold service a "sprinkling", when it was more like a sixth a few weeks ago. And I will be amazed if the 17.51 from London switches from an Adelante to an HST when the last few 180s disappear shortly. It's always a Turbo now as soon as they are short of 125mph sets for the evening peak.

Turbos were already inadequate for anything but the really off-peak trains on the Cotswold Line in the last few years of Thames - and offered a far poorer passenger environment than the 168s and 170s in use elsewhere by then - but Thames had nothing else to offer, something that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) made great play of when it took over, bringing in Adelantes with great fanfare within a matter of months.

air-conditioning problems on 166s in the summer

Try all year round. Like when the system refuses to heat up at all early on winter mornings, or the centre coaches I walked through today and last week that were like saunas.
 

looking around me it was clean

Where were you looking? The textured seat mouldings have dirt in every crevice and every wall and ceiling panel has dirt on - because no-one seems to be bothered tackling it, on the basis it's all going to get spray-painted over soon anyway.

I wouldn't defend Thames, because from the moment they knew the franchise was gone, they just gave up, and the fabric they ordered for their refit programme was useless and wore out instantly but in their current state - and interior configuration - Turbos just aren't suitable for the Cotswolds, expect perhaps the halts stoppers, where most passengers get on and off between Oxford and Moreton anyway.

If the 166s were four-car, configured internally like a Chiltern Clubman or an XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 170, then I would have few problems with them on the Cotswold Line off-peak - but as three-car sets, with mainly 3+2 suburban seats, they aren't up to journeys that take as long as London-Worcester. Roll on new 172s/Spanish/Chinese DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), which, it is to be hoped, will bridge the gap in quality between a Turbo and an HST, even with tombstone seats.

[inspector_blakey]

Like I said, I reserve judgement on the Cotswold services. I would be fairly happy with a Turbo for many intermediate journeys on the line but would certainly be cheesed off to arrive at Paddington and find I had to travel to Hereford on one.

I wouldn't defend Thames, because from the moment they knew the franchise was gone, they just gave up, and the fabric they ordered for their refit programme was useless and wore out instantly but in their current state - and interior configuration - Turbos just aren't suitable for the Cotswolds, expect perhaps the halts stoppers, where most passengers get on and off between Oxford and Moreton anyway.

My impression from regular travel with Thames was that they had given up the moment they were awarded the franchise. It always gave the impression of being an operation that cut costs, staffing and "frills" (read "essentials") such as cleaning and interior maintenance to the bone in order to hoover as much money out of the franchise as possible. A symptom of this was the tin-pot, p*ssbag customer information system they installed at Oxford has made catching a train there a case of "multiple guess" for much of the last ten years; it must have confused the hell out of elderly and occasional travellers. Although I never used Thameslink as-was, I have read various comment pieces in the railway press suggesting that Go Ahead's approach to that service was much the same. It made my blood boil a while ago when I read an interview with Keith Ludeman (Go Ahead boss) in which he asserted that it was a shame they had lost the franchise because "Thames Trains was one of the best". All of which goes to show, in my mind, that bus operators do not necessarily make good train operators: Go Ahead still run a superb bus service in the form of the Oxford Bus Company but could never get it right running the local train service!

[Electric train]

To be fair to TT (aka Go-ahead) their franchise was on of diminishing subsidy, not surprising there were cost cuttings after all "there has to be a nice drop of bubbly at the share holders meeting"

[Btline]

The thing is, Govia (Go-ahead and Keolis/SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways)) run LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise), SN and SE - vastly improving all three (ignoring the proposed SE cuts and LM).

I find 150 seats (3+2) more comfortable than Thames Turbos!

Off peak, noone really sits in the middle seats on any 3+2 stock. I read once that in the USA, they designed the outer seat out of three to be rock hard and the middle seat to be realy comfy. Thus, commuters moved into the middle seat and standing passengers sat on the outer seat (more comfortable than standing). Hopefully FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will not do this!

I agree with Willc about a 4 car 2+2 unit for off peak Cotswold trains. Also use them for Worcester commuter services and halts train. (and while we are building them - rustle up a few to improve the comfort on Worcester - Brighton/Southampton/Weymouth trains!

[IndustryInsider]

My impression from regular travel with Thames was that they had given up the moment they were awarded the franchise. It always gave the impression of being an operation that cut costs, staffing and "frills" (read "essentials") such as cleaning and interior maintenance to the bone in order to hoover as much money out of the franchise as possible. A symptom of this was the tin-pot, p*ssbag customer information system they installed at Oxford has made catching a train there a case of "multiple guess" for much of the last ten years; it must have confused the hell out of elderly and occasional travellers. Although I never used Thameslink as-was, I have read various comment pieces in the railway press suggesting that Go Ahead's approach to that service was much the same. It made my blood boil a while ago when I read an interview with Keith Ludeman (Go Ahead boss) in which he asserted that it was a shame they had lost the franchise because "Thames Trains was one of the best". All of which goes to show, in my mind, that bus operators do not necessarily make good train operators: Go Ahead still run a superb bus service in the form of the Oxford Bus Company but could never get it right running the local train service!

I agree to a certain extent that Thames Trains wasn't exactly the most ambitious of operators. It was quite content to rest on its laurels most of the time, and the thought of ever doing anything that was risky in the short term but might be beneficial in the long term was always frowned upon. A publicity soundbite of 'First choice train operator in Berkshire' (or something like that) probably sums it up! It may well be that lack of ambition cost them the franchise as First were able to offer two bids, the higher of which (eventually the winner but at the cost of taking the franchise back into subsidy) was the one which included the use of Adelantes on services to Oxford and the Cotswolds.

To be fair to them though, the CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) system was pretty revolutionary at the time and represented a large investment of ^3m at the time. Many stations that had never had any PA^▸ (Public Address) or screens suddenly received it, but being one of the first (if not THE first) to have a real-time automated system of that nature meant that there were always going to be problems with it. The FGW^▸ (First Great Western) CIS systems introduced at Reading and other stations at the turn if the decade no-doubt benefited from the lessons learned from the Thames system.

Also, a large amount of management time and resources went into dealing with the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove crash from late 2000 - don't forget it was a small employer of only around 1000 staff.

That being said, cleaning was haphazard at times - there were no cleaning staff on at Paddington after 9pm so all the night trains went around slowly gathering litter ending up a right state. Also, windows were being badly scratched but Thames were very reluctant to spend the money fitting CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) or regularly replacing the plastic films covering the glass.

[inspector_blakey]

A publicity soundbite of 'First choice train operator in Berkshire' (or something like that) probably sums it up!

Nicely put! 

Also, a large amount of management time and resources went into dealing with the aftermath of the Ladbroke Grove crash from late 2000 - don't forget it was a small employer of only around 1000 staff.

It's a long time since I read the Cullen report so my memory may be failing me, but I recall that Thames' driver training procedures were severely criticized (although Railtrack also came in for censure on several levels as well). Without wishing to sound simplistic, I can't feel too much sympathy for TT having to devote management time and attention to the aftermath of the crash. Some management time and resources being devoted to actually training staff how to drive trains out of Paddington before the accident might have prevented it in the first place.

[willc]

And at long last... the refresh programme. Buried in Modern Railways' review of the December timetables is some stuff about diagram changes on assorted Thames Valley services in the morning and evening peaks to free up a three-car Turbo set to go through the workshop.

Among these is making permanent a change I was unaware of previously - since I never bother to look at the destination labels in the windows. The 17.51 (becomes 17.50 from december) to Worcester has apparently been calling at Maidenhead (18.09) since September. Will be quite handy for me if I'm visiting friends in Maidenhead on a weekday.

As a result, Maidenhead passengers have apparently transferred their affections to this service from the 17.36 Paddington-Oxford, so this will be cut from a six-car to four-car Turbo formation from December as part of the shake-up.