165/6s won't be able to run Portsmouth-Cardiff

[whole diary]

[northwesterntrains]

There have been some suggestions that Networkers displaced by cascaded EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) will take over Portsmouth-Cardiff.  However, it turns out that can't happen:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%203%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20and%20depots/network%20rus%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20-%20draft%20for%20consultation.pdf
Page 45 shows where 166s can run.  As there are red sections between Portsmouth and Cardiff it means that clearance isn't possible for 166s on that route.

[ChrisB]

THat's only for 166s, not both 165/6s....

They're obviously different maps as I note that 166s aren't cleared for the Chiltern route, while 165s obviously are!

Oh, and it's page 44 not 45 - the page numbers are at the top of each page, for some reason!

[northwesterntrains]

Maybe 166 clearance automatically means 165 clearance but not vice versa.

[JayMac]

This is only the case at present. Gauge clearance work could be carried out if it was deemed necessary.

[grahame]

There are some very curious things in that diagram - cleared to run from Craven Arms to Llandrindod Wells, but clearance issues to get to Craven Arms.   Then the line to Llanelli should be clear in theory; no gauge infringement, but you'll foul if you go west or east beyond Swansea ...

[ChrisB]

Maybe 166 clearance automatically means 165 clearance but not vice versa.

That doesn't work - because the map is showing no clearance for 166s on Chiltern, but we know 165s are cleared...

[northwesterntrains]

Maybe 166 clearance automatically means 165 clearance but not vice versa.

That doesn't work - because the map is showing no clearance for 166s on Chiltern, but we know 165s are cleared...

I don't think you understood.  What I was saying is

166 clearance = line a, line b, line c
165 clearance = all 166 cleared lines plus line d.

[ChrisB]

Sorry, now I don't understand.....

Looking at that map, I don't see any Line a, b, c or d.....

[northwesterntrains]

Sorry, now I don't understand.....

Looking at that map, I don't see any Line a, b, c or d.....

They are example lines not referring to a line on the map.

[ChrisB]

I now understand - but what makes you think that?

Can you even explain for sure why a line should be cleared for one & not the other? If not, surely you are just guessing?

[northwesterntrains]

I now understand - but what makes you think that?

Can you even explain for sure why a line should be cleared for one & not the other? If not, surely you are just guessing?

I was guessing at the time but have found out why the 166s are not cleared for the Chiltern 165 route.  For clearance between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham tripcocks must be fitted.  The 165/0s have these but the 165/1s and 166s do not.

[ChrisB]

OK, that covers the LU section - but the 166s aren't cleared for the High Wycombe route either - all the way to Banbury it seems too, but the map isn't lasrge enough scale to be sure.

So, what do you reckon the reason is there?

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

i dont think they would be willing to split the fleet, but exmouth would probably be a good line for them

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

It is strange that back in the days of Thames Trains, CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) had a class 166 charter from the Cotswold Line to Weymouth via the Castle Cary to Dorchester line that is shown in red. I understand that there were no clearance problems except where the train had to pass through Yeovil Pen Mill at no more than 10 mph due to the very tight platform clearance.

[ChrisB]

Maybe some alreration has been made subsequently to the 166 fleet since that excursion to make them fail that route?

Or even - some change to that line maybe? It was some years ago...