East Midlands Trains Class 158799 - On Hire to SWT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
6,022
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Will anyone notice the difference? ;)

(Is the inside any different to SWT units?)
Er, Yes - East Midlands refurbished their units with grammer seats (Perfect for the on hire duties then as it's the same as GWs HSTs), as well as a few livery tweaks. Oh and lack of annoying PA - Although that probably dosent make much of a difference in FGW land. ;)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,299
I expect that the 'hire in' will normally replace the unit SWT still hire out to FGW on a daily basis.

Otherwise they'd end up in a slightly daft situation where FGW were declassifying First Class on an SWT unit, and SWT were apologising for it being missing from an EMT unit...
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,612
Why not just hire it directly to FGW and cut out the middle man save having to involve SWT ?

The nonsense of privatisation ........
 

323235

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2007
Messages
1,821
Location
North East Cheshire
It would make more sense for it to be stabled at Phillips Marsh rather than Salisbury depot since it won't be working any SWT services because according to a member on another forum the SWT drivers are refusing to drive it in passenger service (Save for the move to get it back to depot) because it lacks the modification which locks the area behind the cab out of use.
 
Last edited:

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,086
Not saying that he is definitely wrong, but I would guess that he said that on the (very reasonable!) assumption that since it is an EMT train running a FGW service that FGW have an EMT 158 on hire!
 

323235

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2007
Messages
1,821
Location
North East Cheshire
It's definitely not on direct hire as the following was posted on another forum :


2O90 1240 Worcester Foregate Street-Weymouth
2V93 1728 Weymouth-Bristol Temple Meads
2C34 2200 Bristol Temple Meads-Westbury
1O86 2223 Bristol Temple Meads-Salisbury (158799 attached at Westbury)
5O86 0008 Salisbury-Salisbury Depot
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
11,961
Location
Caerphilly
It's SWT who require an extra Unit and the Daily lease to FGW is an SWT commitment for the duration of the lease for which a contract would be in place. The fact it is working the FGW lease is purely a matter for SWT which has obviously been decided by the Driver's refusal to work.
 

thehstman

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2008
Messages
118
I travelled on this unit yesturday between Bristol Temple Meads and Worcester Foregate Street while working the Southampton - Worcester fte st service!
Personally i think it may turn up on the cheltenham - Swindon shuttles in the week :)
 

159jim

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2009
Messages
346
Location
Salisbury/Bournemouth
I travelled on this unit yesturday between Bristol Temple Meads and Worcester Foregate Street while working the Southampton - Worcester fte st service!
Personally i think it may turn up on the cheltenham - Swindon shuttles in the week :)
It will, that working is normally worked by the hire-in SWT 158, which works Golden Valley shuttles M-F
 

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,620
so (as it looks as if I'll be on this shuttle next week), the 09:40 Cheltenham - Swindon shuttle will be worked by this hired in EMT unit, as opposed to the SWT one with first class? (although I thought it was declassified when in FGW use)
 
Last edited:

thehstman

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2008
Messages
118
07:04 Westbury - Cheltenham Spa 09:04
09:40 Cheltenham - Swindon 10:42
11:54 Swindon - Cheltenham 13:03
13:40 Cheltenham - Swindon 14:42
15:54 Swindon - Cheltenham 17:03
17:40 Cheltenham - Southampton 20:48

Thanks
 

trentside

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,310
Location
The back cab
I never thought I'd see the day that EMT had sufficient DMUs to allow them to begin hiring them out to other operators - luckily it's not one I need to red pen ;)

Out of interest (and forgive me if it's been explained elsewhere), but what is the issue with the SWT drivers requiring the vestibule behind the cab to be locked out of passenger use?
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,086
Apparantly it is completely necessary although the reason is only a problem on SWT but not EMT, NT, FSR, ATW and anyone else that has ever had 158s!
 

323235

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2007
Messages
1,821
Location
North East Cheshire
Is it something to do with the drivers having passenger free access if they need to leave the cab to go line side to prevent any risk of passengers falling onto the third rail in the South East?

That's the only thing I can think of.
 

TheBigD

Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
947
I never thought I'd see the day that EMT had sufficient DMUs to allow them to begin hiring them out to other operators - luckily it's not one I need to red pen ;)
6 of EMT's Skegness services were shortformed yesterday. Plenty of "cosy" trains on the poacher line yesterday.
 

Lrd

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2010
Messages
3,018
Is it something to do with the drivers having passenger free access if they need to leave the cab to go line side to prevent any risk of passengers falling onto the third rail in the South East?

That's the only thing I can think of.
FGW don't have this problem in third rail land.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
3,200
FGW don't have this problem in third rail land.
That's because they dont spend nearly half their journey tearing up the swml from Basingstoke to Waterloo, in comparison Southampton-Portsmouth/Brighton is a lot less distance. I think the 442 operated with the same policy for the same reason, although I could be wrong.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,299
That's because they dont spend nearly half their journey tearing up the swml from Basingstoke to Waterloo, in comparison Southampton-Portsmouth/Brighton is a lot less distance. I think the 442 operated with the same policy for the same reason, although I could be wrong.
That is the reason. It was primarily for safety if the driver had to leave the train when running on the fast lines of the four tracked third rail route between Waterloo and Basingstoke.

The 442 did use exactly the same policy.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,588
Location
Nottinghamshire
A 156 went to Liverpool paired with a 158 too.
I know, i was the muppet who had to put up with it. This thread explains why now!
156410 it was for those interested. Attached to 158780. Made sure i wrote a "75mph max!" reminder on my diagram when i got in the 158 at Sheffield!
To be fair it performed a lot better than the 2x158's i had on the way back with an engine out. Was down to 40mph by the time we got to the top of the hill at Edale.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FGW don't have this problem in third rail land.
Neither do we at Hunts Cross.
 
Last edited:

james60059

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2006
Messages
624
Location
Hinckley
Surprised that it's not been mentioned yet but East Midlands Trains 158799 Has taken a summer holiday and is on hire to South West Trains / First Great Western.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7650308926/

It should be the only EMT 158 moving over to SWT for the duration of the Olympics, and is today on 'On Hire to First Great Western' duties.
Seen her pass at Elford, near Tamworth. Was indeed a welcome addition to my photo collection lol :lol:


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top