See post #10Is anyone aware if the plan is to install 2+2 seating as part of this refresh?
See post #10Is anyone aware if the plan is to install 2+2 seating as part of this refresh?
All 165s only have the universal toilet as they were only built with one toilet in each unit. The 166s had two toilets, hence retention of the original cubicle in one coach in each unit.I believe Chilterns 165 fleet has a modern design.
Yes, just a simple raised lip on the length of the sink unit would have prevented a lot of water going on the floor. The metal sink insert that came later didn't really help.From a personal point of view though, I would like to see the back of them altogether - the sink design was poor and often allowed water to dribble onto the floor, and the narrow wooden door was equally of poor design - somehow a train newer than the 158 fleet seemed to have something with the quality and narrowness
The accessible toilets are also not known for their reliability due to the tanks filling up, or running out of water, or the sliding doors developing a fault - Though definitely more reliable of the two. It’s not uncommon to find both toilets out of service on the Cardiff to Portsmouth or Gloucester to Weymouth runs.If there is still a functioning Universal Access Toilet on board, would it not make sense just to remove the other one during the refresh? They could replace it with bicycle space.
Please no. The more loos on a train the better.If there is still a functioning Universal Access Toilet on board, would it not make sense just to remove the other one during the refresh? They could replace it with bicycle space.
Why the hell are there seats facing the toilet entrance like that!View attachment 102871
View attachment 102872
Rear coach of 166218 didn't look that bad to me. Exmouth- Paignton needs the 2+3 seating. All the 166's have been used down here and always used on the school run when they carry 150-200 schoolchildren to Torre.
Indeed I agreePlease no. The more loos on a train the better.
Why the hell are there seats facing the toilet entrance like that!
Lack of modesty and thought in these designs
Four extra seats…Please no. The more loos on a train the better.
Why the hell are there seats facing the toilet entrance like that!
Lack of modesty and thought in these designs
Not great for anyone when u exit the toliet after having quite a vocal turd.Four extra seats…
Four extra seats…
Is that a confession of guilt?Not great for anyone when u exit the toliet after having quite a vocal turd.
as you get older it becomes harder to control nature!Is that a confession of guilt?
Yes they do.Neither Coaches
Northern are suffering from the same problem on some 158s (mostly in the small toilets on ex-Scotrail stock).The small toilets have fallen to issues beyond GWRs control. The only company that made the parts for them (and before anyone moans about it and blames GWR, they didn't select the toilet design 30years ago, not their fault BR only asked one company to build parts for it) went bust last year, and so once a toilet fails, if the part isn't in stock, it's unrepairable indefinitely.
Problem is that obtaining new diesel units now is not a good move given the need to eliminate diesel traction soon. Using 165s/166s now and hoping the technology moves on in the next ten years is preferable to locking in diesel use for the next 35 years.With much of their work now being on long-distance inter-regional express services, which also carry a large number of short-distance commuters, surely replacing them with a further brach of Class 195s would be the answer for this type of service, quiet, relaxing, good acceleration, efficient air-conditioning and configured to offer a good compromise suitable for both long and short-distance travellers. I was very impressed with these units.
Problem is that obtaining new diesel units now is not a good move given the need to eliminate diesel traction soon. Using 165s/166s now and hoping the technology moves on in the next ten years is preferable to locking in diesel use for the next 35 years.
We must not forget the one, and only so far, refurbishment of 166205, which has quite comfortable standard class seating and ex-HST Leather First Class seats - but I doubt they would be fitted as they've all gone through the Newport Shredder.
166205 subsequently had the flat cloth replaced by the standard GWR pile moquette.Edit: this is 166205? It's new cushions on the existing seat frames that look like the HST ones, though flat cloth in Standard. Fair chance the refresh will look like this I reckon.
Agreed.
There is however no reason, other than cost, why you couldn't refurbish a 166 to look like a 195 inside, and to fit the Chiltern air cooling system which is highly reliable (and also fitted to the GWR 165s?)
Utterly idiotic that all those perfectly acceptable Grammer IC3000s and fancy 1st seats got binned when they could have been fitted to these units and made something really nice like a doors-at-thirds Inverness 158
Edit: this is 166205? It's new cushions on the existing seat frames that look like the HST ones, though flat cloth in Standard. Fair chance the refresh will look like this I reckon.
Interior views of First and Standard in 166205, Wikimedia Commons
166205 subsequently had the flat cloth replaced by the standard GWR pile moquette.
I agree that binning the HST standard class seats does seem like an example of profligate waste.
I thought the 166s were destined in the future for Exeter to replace the 150s while Bristol gets the 165s extended with extra coaches from the redundant electrostar fleet.
Devon and Cornwall always gets the castoffs.
But at least you’ve got the better quality castoffs (short formed HST sets, 150s and 158s that have all been recently refurbished). On the side of that, I really hope the “165 extra coaches + Hybrid Drive” idea is dead. So far other projects which have messed around with EMUs have not exactly proven successful (230 / 769) and the Turbo’s really need replacing with something more suitable, than being re-engineered further and mucked around with. They’re sluggish and bad enough in their current formation as it stands.
What is the fuel range on a turbo. I believe SWR diesels are around 1500-1600 miles.
205s First Class seats were the same FC seats as before, just recovered to match the then HST First Class of the time. Whether or not they’ll continue with leather in the FC section or the FC section at all remains to be seen, they may chose to match the IET FC or bin it off altogether, as the only Turbo FC route now is the North Downs.
Indeed - both in standard and first class. Those IC3000s could have been used in a lot of other fleets. Perhaps the biggest waste of all were the ones fitted to the 425 & TCs, the last of which where completed in 2015 and the first stood down in 2017. A lot of wastage there!
And even the 165s won't be around for long on the North Downs route as they are meant to be replaced by the 769s at some point in the future.
I reckon the FC areas on the 166s will go, with the same sort of seats as being fitted to the rest of the train
Which fleet is this sorry?Indeed - both in standard and first class. Those IC3000s could have been used in a lot of other fleets. Perhaps the biggest waste of all were the ones fitted to the 425 & TCs, the last of which where completed in 2015 and the first stood down in 2017. A lot of wastage there!
Same goes for some of the lines in and out of Bristol, anything less than 3 car 166s and they are sardines in the school hours.Rear coach of 166218 didn't look that bad to me. Exmouth- Paignton needs the 2+3 seating. All the 166's have been used down here and always used on the school run when they carry 150-200 schoolchildren to Torre.
When the class 172s for Chiltern and LM were ordered nearly a decade ago we were all saying that pure diesel orders would decline but with electrification pushed back and trains ageing wholesale, it was obvious that Sprinters, Pacers and now some Turbos were not going to be replaced by EMUs. The case in a few years time will be the same. Much of the West of England will never be viable to electrify so at best we see bi-modes maybe with battery technology. Having used them frequently enough (even if it was a few years ago) the turbos do not have 10 years left in them. Mechanically they are not in the best state after intensive Thames Valley working for 25 years.Problem is that obtaining new diesel units now is not a good move given the need to eliminate diesel traction soon. Using 165s/166s now and hoping the technology moves on in the next ten years is preferable to locking in diesel use for the next 35 years.
I thought the 166s were destined in the future for Exeter to replace the 150s while Bristol gets the 165s extended with extra coaches from the redundant electrostar fleet.
Devon and Cornwall always gets the castoffs.
While you are right, it could be the 195s from Northern or 196s from West Midlands which replace the diesel trains in the South West in due course once their routes are electrified. However, to consider that is somewhat speculative. What is important at the moment is getting the Turbos fit for the next ten years.When the class 172s for Chiltern and LM were ordered nearly a decade ago we were all saying that pure diesel orders would decline but with electrification pushed back and trains ageing wholesale, it was obvious that Sprinters, Pacers and now some Turbos were not going to be replaced by EMUs. The case in a few years time will be the same. Much of the West of England will never be viable to electrify so at best we see bi-modes maybe with battery technology. Having used them frequently enough (even if it was a few years ago) the turbos do not have 10 years left in them. Mechanically they are not in the best state after intensive Thames Valley working for 25 years.