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

[whole diary]

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

i think exeters great work on the 142 fleet and the increase in reliability is proof that having a designated place for certain units works

[willc]

In addition to, not instead of.

As has been said subsequently, highly unlikely that a mix of 158s and Turbos would be working that route, given the completely different interiors.

And while it might be nice to think so, I would be astonished if whoever happens to be operating services around Bristol come 2016 would be allowed to hang on to all the go-anywhere 158s after an influx of GW^▸ (Great Western)-loading gauge Turbos - the 158s are simply too useful elsewhere and there will be a great many Turbos looking for a new home out of a Thames Valley fleet of almost 60 sets.

I must admit I've assumed that it would be more likely 165/6s replace 158s in the wider 'Bristol area' to allow all the 158s to operate on the Portsmouth route in 4 car pairs.

In which case, why would anyone bother to think of mentioning clearing the route all the way to Portsmouth for Turbos?

But to address willc's point, I was referring to the route business plans, not the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), and if you read a few years worth in hindsight many things in them do seem to happen...

Some things happen, others don't and route business plans, to quote Network Rail, "reflect and build upon the Route Utilisation Strategies". They are not some separate entity.

As for the idea that 

There wasn't a GW RUS until early last year

that will probably come as news to the former staff of the Strategic Rail Authority, who produced a GW RUS in 2005, which, among other things, gave us the high-density HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

[JayMac]

As has been said subsequently, highly unlikely that a mix of 158s and Turbos would be working that route, given the completely different interiors.

And while it might be nice to think so, I would be astonished if whoever happens to be operating services around Bristol come 2016 would be allowed to hang on to all the go-anywhere 158s after an influx of GW^▸ (Great Western)-loading gauge Turbos - the 158s are simply too useful elsewhere and there will be a great many Turbos looking for a new home out of a Thames Valley fleet of almost 60 sets.

My point really was that I see Turbos as being in addition to 158s on a franchise wide basis. The cascade down from the new Thameslink fleet opens up lots of possibilities and, truth be told, none of us know how the fleets will finally shakedown.

My belief is that the Greater Western Franchise needs additional capacity in the west, particularly around Bristol, so I would hope that a cascade of Turbos doesn't mean simply a carriage for carriage swap with 158s. As for one TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) using two differing types of unit on one route, well, that already goes on in a number of places. The issue of seat reservations is not insurmountable either.

CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains)-PMH 158s can be strengthened to 4 or 6 car when needed. Cascaded down to other routes within the GW franchise (with maybe some becoming excess to requirements for other TOCs - particularly Northern - to snap up). That cascade then gives more options for 150s and 153s (again releasing some for use elsewhere in the country). And finally, hopefully sees the end of 142/3s running on mainlines and relegate their use to all but the shortest of branch lines.

That's my two penn'orth. YMMV^▸ (Your Method/Mileage May Vary)   

[willc]

As for one TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) using two differing types of unit on one route, well, that already goes on in a number of places. The issue of seat reservations is not insurmountable either.

No-one said it doesn't happen but there are usually particular reasons, eg the different flows and loadings across the day/platform lengths on the Cotswold Line. And without an expensive interior refit - and brake and cooling system modifications that would be required for that - Turbos won't be any more suited for the distances involved on Cardiff-Portsmouth than they are for London to Malvern and Hereford.

The issue of seat reservations is not insurmountable either.

Not without spending more money on new seat shells with ticket pockets (or a fancy XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) or Pendolino-style luggage rack display it's not (hence why you can reserve seats on Cotswold HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and 180s in the past but not on Turbo duties).

If the Cotswold Line goes over to 100 per cent IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bi-mode operation, as noises from DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) indicate, and the Thames Valley branches were wired, and you passed over the Oxford-Banbury stoppers to Chiltern, then the entire current FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Turbo fleet would be going spare, so a lot of go-anywhere 15X sets would be going anywhere but the West Country, indeed you could probably replace the lot in FGW-land, bar the 153s, with Turbos and have a capacity increase with just two basic types of dmu to worry about.

[Timmer]

The issue of seat reservations is easily sorted by not having seat reservations on Cardiff-Portsmouth/Brighton services.

[JayMac]

No need to abandon reservations completely. Just move to the reservation model already used by SWT^▸ (South West Trains), Southern and London Midland. Booked train, just not booked seat.

No expensive refit needed at all, and no problems when one type of rolling stock is substituted for another.

[Electric train]

Seems to be a lot of if's these sets were primarily built as medium / high density commuter trains with a far from perfect adaption, the 166, for longer duration services on the Cotsworld and North Downs lines.
 
The 165/6's still have quite a number of years hard work in the TV, don't forget even after the wires go up sets will be needed for the branches, Basingstoke, Newbury / Bedwyns, North Downs.  By the time the wires are done the sets will be close on 30 years old, they would need a heavy overhaul the refresh has only realistically painted over the cracks (165 windows still do not work correctly)

[willc]

The issue of seat reservations is easily sorted by not having seat reservations on Cardiff-Portsmouth/Brighton services.

That will be popular with all those who value knowing they will have a seat on a route noted for overcrowding at busy times.

No need to abandon reservations completely. Just move to the reservation model already used by SWT^▸ (South West Trains), Southern and London Midland. Booked train, just not booked seat.

No expensive refit needed at all, and no problems when one type of rolling stock is substituted for another.

Same comment re reservations - booked train indeed, can't be bothered with offering reservations more like. Great system if you've got sharp elbows, I suppose. As for no refit needed, I can't wait to hear the howls of outrage should people be asked to wedge themselves into those 3+2 seats for a Bristol-Southampton journey.

The 165/6's still have quite a number of years hard work in the TV, don't forget even after the wires go up sets will be needed for the branches, Basingstoke, Newbury / Bedwyns, North Downs.

They are still a good few years younger than the 150s FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is about to get. Wiring of the Thames Valley branches is surely going to feature as a bargaining chip in the FGW franchise bidding, and you might just as well send a dmu in from Westbury to cover Bedwyn. North Downs should be handed over to SWT or Southern and third rails go down (a change to be made at franchise break time, perhaps?) and if you're going to send Crossrail trains out to Reading, then why not wire to Basingstoke as well, which would also give you a Class 92-friendly alternative route for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) container traffic at Southampton.

On which subject and which could have spin-off route clearance benefits for Turbos between Bristol and Southampton and north of Bristol, Network Rail is going to carry out a detailed study of all possible alternative routes for container traffic out of Southampton, in addition to the existing W10-cleared route via Oxford and the planned diversion route via Salisbury. If you're going to start knocking bridges about for vertical clearance, then a bit of extra lateral clearance is easily provided as well.

[ChrisB]

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has stated that no more third-rail electrification will go down. Something to do with EU^» (European Union - about) regs?

[IndustryInsider]

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has stated that no more third-rail electrification will go down. Something to do with EU^» (European Union - about) regs?

Link please?

[ChrisB]

Many mentions in the Railway magazines obver the past months....

[northwesterntrains]

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has stated that no more third-rail electrification will go down. Something to do with EU^» (European Union - about) regs?

There's been a few proposals to extend 3rd rail electrification from the Merseyrail network.  Most of these have been rejected due to being classed as non-economically viable.  A proposed Ellesmere Port-Helsby extension was apparently rejected as Shell objected the line going past their Stanlow refinery having 3rd rail for safety reasons.

[IndustryInsider]

Many mentions in the Railway magazines obver the past months....

Really?  I can't remember any myself - though you're sure they're not just pulling stories from the railway forums?   

I certainly can't find any official statements to the contrary.  Only the long standing comment that only in-fill schemes would be considered.  Hence the ability to electrify Wokingham to Redhill being mentioned several times on here in the past to possibly draw on the Class 319's dual voltage abilities.  It would be a shame if no more 3rd rail electrification was permitted under any circumstances as you state.

[ChrisB]

I think you're right about in-fill, but would that distance of the North Downs be seen as in-fill? If so, then I'm happy to withdraw my comment.

Really?  I can't remember any myself - though you're sure they're not just pulling stories from the railway forums?   

hmmm - and mis-hearing the Customer Services Director at Chiltern say that the Oxford-Bicester Town TWA application include all the works necessary for EAst-WEst Rail to Bletchley?......possibly! (see current June issue of Modern Railways, page 77)

[northwesterntrains]

I must admit I've assumed that it would be more likely 165/6s replace 158s in the wider 'Bristol area' to allow all the 158s to operate on the Portsmouth route in 4 car pairs. A mix of 165/6 or 158 on a route with reservations available wouldn't be practical, and running Turbos in multiple makes revenue and catering different anyway...

Draft RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy)' always list a few different options for evaluation and consultation which could be why different people are thinking different things will happen.  The recent electrification RUS only suggests the Turbos will go on to other suitable routes.

I would agree that 158s running in multiple would seem to best for Portsmouth-Cardiff.  I would imagine that if Turbos were put on that route they would be refurbished to a compromised commuter/long distance specification like some Desiros, which means a lot of passengers may prefer the older 158s, as long as there are more carriages.