GWR Turbo cascade progress to Bristol region services

[swt_passenger]

All the Turbos will be getting the ride height mod, not just the ones in the West. The first one is on mod at SPM now and will be returning to Reading very shortly.

Services which are single unit formation only, such as the North Downs, are the ones they will be first working in LTV.

Is it known what the exact ride height increase is, please?

 

[BestWestern]

All the Turbos will be getting the ride height mod, not just the ones in the West. The first one is on mod at SPM now and will be returning to Reading very shortly.

Services which are single unit formation only, such as the North Downs, are the ones they will be first working in LTV.

That's interesting. Why are they doing the LTV ones?

 

[BestWestern]

Is it known what the exact ride height increase is, please?

Not a great deal, just enough to lift the running boards clear of the platform coping stones presumably. Couple of inches perhaps, at a guess? It might make Lawrence Hill, umm, 'interesting'!

 

[Clarence Yard]

Not a great deal, just enough to lift the running boards clear of the platform coping stones presumably. Couple of inches perhaps, at a guess? It might make Lawrence Hill, umm, 'interesting'!

25mm. It's still way below the vertical stepping distance of a cl.150. NSE built the Turbos to be much closer to the platform than a Sprinter. Hence the perennial step board issue if the Turbos go anywhere but native territory.

With such a relatively easy mod, it made sense for the whole fleet to be done and therefore total interoperability will be achieved.

 

[Roast Veg]

A nice bit of forward thinking to do them all, will allow for good flexibility in the future. Will the height mods affect the couplers or are those unaffected by the works? It is unfortunate that the turbos are not compatible with the existing stock anyway, but in rescue situations it will almost certainly be useful to have the capability of mechanical compatibility.

 

[FenMan]

25mm. It's still way below the vertical stepping distance of a cl.150. NSE built the Turbos to be much closer to the platform than a Sprinter. Hence the perennial step board issue if the Turbos go anywhere but native territory.

With such a relatively easy mod, it made sense for the whole fleet to be done and therefore total interoperability will be achieved.

Will passengers alighting on Platform 1 at Blackwater be provided with parachutes?

 

[FGW_DID]

A nice bit of forward thinking to do them all, will allow for good flexibility in the future. Will the height mods affect the couplers or are those unaffected by the works? It is unfortunate that the turbos are not compatible with the existing stock anyway, but in rescue situations it will almost certainly be useful to have the capability of mechanical compatibility.

Yes, Ride Height Modified (RHM) Turbos will be 'non-multi' with non-RHM versions, there is (or will be) a procedure in place should the need arise to rescue a non compatible unit, (deflate the airbag suspension!)

 

[superalbs]

Facebook claims GWR Turbo operation out of Bristol starting 3rd July.

Possible service that it could run is this: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20786/2017/07/06/advanced

Note the start date of 3rd July.

Of course it may be inaccurate, just being a claim on Facebook. :P

 

[JN114]

Facebook claims GWR Turbo operation out of Bristol starting 3rd July.

Possible service that it could run is this: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20786/2017/07/06/advanced

Note the start date of 3rd July.

Of course it may be inaccurate, just being a claim on Facebook. :P

It is the Severn Beach line that they'll be introduced on to first; start date is contingent on sufficient traincrew being trained up on the traction. July isn't an unreasonable start date.

 

[PHILIPE]

These believed to have been Turbo gauging trains:-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/AVN/2017/06/08/0000-2359?stp=S&show=all&order=wtt

 

[BestWestern]

It is the Severn Beach line that they'll be introduced on to first; start date is contingent on sufficient traincrew being trained up on the traction. July isn't an unreasonable start date.

The same statement is on GWR's website.

 

[Envoy]

Have these ex-Thames Turbos been done up in any way? A friend of mine has travelled on them and says they are pretty basic - not what you would call long distance trains. (Cardiff to Portsmouth is 3 hours 10 minutes).

 

[Mag_seven]

Have these ex-Thames Turbos been done up in any way? A friend of mine has travelled on them and says they are pretty basic - not what you would call long distance trains. (Cardiff to Portsmouth is 3 hours 10 minutes).

Well they can be no worse thatn the 158 fleet with their cramped seats and claustrophobic feel (especially when more often than not the air con fails). The Turbos are light and airy, have good seat/window lineup and the 165's have opening windows. If anything they should scrap the aircon on the 166's and fit opening windows.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Have these ex-Thames Turbos been done up in any way? A friend of mine has travelled on them and says they are pretty basic - not what you would call long distance trains. (Cardiff to Portsmouth is 3 hours 10 minutes).

So is Paddington-Hereford, a similar time and distance, which they have done for 20 years and more.
They are well-used, of course, but are very capable units.
They are due to be refurbished.

 

[swt_passenger]

So is Paddington-Hereford, a similar time and distance, which they have done for 20 years and more.
They are well-used, of course, but are very capable units.
They are due to be refurbished.

Also, there would be no need to do whatever refurbishment is proposed for the Portsmouth run yet. There are still delays in transferring the stock from TV to Bristol, and IIRC it has also been explained somewhere that gauge clearance to Portsmouth is not due for completion until probably the end of 2018.

 

[Steve14]

I supposed once they are kitted out in a 2-2 layout (not sure if thats correct so please correct me). This layout is decent, airy and spacious. And even though the 165s do not have AC, once the windows are open and the train is in motion, that air coming through is magnificent. The pressure on GWRs shortages elsewhere will slowly begin to fade once these are all cascaded. Just lile the TV lines, we are slowly feeling the ease with the new electrostars along the maidenhead to paddington route, although HSTs are awfully busy peak times. I guess once the 387s are introduced on the didcot and newbury lines then it will ease up the HSTs.

 

[jimm]

I supposed once they are kitted out in a 2-2 layout (not sure if thats correct so please correct me). This layout is decent, airy and spacious. And even though the 165s do not have AC, once the windows are open and the train is in motion, that air coming through is magnificent.

The 165s will retain 3+2 seats - only the 166s are being converted to 2+2 - and are going to be fitted with air cooling kit like the Chiltern 165s.

While a howling gale at 90mph may be okay on a very hot summer day, most of the year having those long hopper windows open - whether because someone insists on having 'fresh air' with added diesel fumes or the window catch is broken - is a complete pain and downright unpleasant in winter. The sooner air cooling is fitted and the windows are replaced with sealed units, the better.

 

[CP165]

Regarding the 166s, is the existing air-con system being replaced by Chiltern-style air-cooling, or is it just the 165s being fitted?

Also when the 166s are converted to 2+2 seating, will there still be some 2+3 over the coolant units (I think) in the centre of each coach?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[jimm]

Regarding the 166s, is the existing air-con system being replaced by Chiltern-style air-cooling, or is it just the 165s being fitted?

Also when the 166s are converted to 2+2 seating, will there still be some 2+3 over the coolant units (I think) in the centre of each coach?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

The commitment in the 2015 direct award franchise was air cooling for the 165s, nothing was said about the 166s and these all visited Long Marston for air conditioning modifications recently, so I'd imagine that will be it for them.

Three-seat benches will stay over the coolant header tanks in the 166s.

 

[PHILIPE]

The commitment in the 2015 direct award franchise was air cooling for the 165s, nothing was said about the 166s and these all visited Long Marston for air conditioning modifications recently, so I'd imagine that will be it for them.

Three-seat benches will stay over the coolant header tanks in the 166s.

They won't be very popular when they start doing the Cardiff to Portsmouths if there is still some 2+3 seating

 

[CP165]

They won't be very popular when they start doing the Cardiff to Portsmouths if there is still some 2+3 seating

I suppose you could always replace the 'third' seat with a small luggage rack or something. Doubt it will happen though.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[Parallel]

It makes sense RE. the Severn Beach line. The Avonmouth service linked on the previous page used to run from Westbury to Avonmouth until this timetable change and I think it was quite popular with commuters from Bath to the Bristol surburban stations. Maybe it will be reinstated once the bulk of the Bristol-area services become Turbos.

Have these ex-Thames Turbos been done up in any way? A friend of mine has travelled on them and says they are pretty basic - not what you would call long distance trains. (Cardiff to Portsmouth is 3 hours 10 minutes).

Indeed and although they do go to Hereford a few times a week, the bulk of the train services are HSTs.

Well they can be no worse thatn the 158 fleet with their cramped seats and claustrophobic feel (especially when more often than not the air con fails). The Turbos are light and airy, have good seat/window lineup and the 165's have opening windows. If anything they should scrap the aircon on the 166's and fit opening windows.

I think 158s are far better for the route than 165s/166s which feel more claustrophobic IMO. Though the air-con in the 158s is particularly poor; it's still fairly unreliable on the 166s too, however as others have mentioned, hopefully it's getting sorted. I just can't see them bring popular on the route. (Though the extra capacity will be welcome)

 

[superalbs]

I suppose you could always replace the 'third' seat with a small luggage rack or something. Doubt it will happen though.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

It depends how many of them there are, and where they are. I don't know the Turbos very well, but if you wall off the area, maybe you could promote it as a family zone, with extra seats for large family groups.

 

[D1009]

They won't be very popular when they start doing the Cardiff to Portsmouths if there is still some 2+3 seating

You have to remember that when Bath RFC have a home game, or any other popular event in Bath or Bristol, these trains are absolutely rammed. Which type of unit can better handle large numbers of standing passengers?

 

[Kite159]

You have to remember that when Bath RFC have a home game, or any other popular event in Bath or Bristol, these trains are absolutely rammed. Which type of unit can better handle large numbers of standing passengers?

A 700

You could also argue that over Christmas time the trains get busy with shoppers in the daytime and drinkers in the evenings.

The door layout will be better for those passengers who decide to stand around the door area rather than moving down inside the carriage when it gets a bit busy

 

[jimm]

They won't be very popular when they start doing the Cardiff to Portsmouths if there is still some 2+3 seating

I suppose you could always replace the 'third' seat with a small luggage rack or something. Doubt it will happen though.

It depends how many of them there are, and where they are. I don't know the Turbos very well, but if you wall off the area, maybe you could promote it as a family zone, with extra seats for large family groups.

As far as I'm aware, just one set of three seats will need to stay, per coach.

I suppose they might keep the opposite one in the bay to keep it company but hardly a big deal.

 

[Envoy]

If the 165’s retain 5 seats across and the 166’s are 4, then surely, once the public realise the difference they will head for the 166’s - especially if they have working air cooling? The problem could then be that the 166 section becomes full, the train moves off and the ‘overflow’ of passengers are not able to access the spare capacity in the 165 section of the train due to lack of through gangway. Perhaps at the next station, ‘overflow’ passengers will try and hop off and back into the 165 section?

 

[Rich McLean]

If the 165’s retain 5 seats across and the 166’s are 4, then surely, once the public realise the difference they will head for the 166’s - especially if they have working air cooling? The problem could then be that the 166 section becomes full, the train moves off and the ‘overflow’ of passengers are not able to access the spare capacity in the 165 section of the train due to lack of through gangway. Perhaps at the next station, ‘overflow’ passengers will try and hop off and back into the 165 section?

They have managed just fine on LTV for many years without gangway connections, same applies with pacers and 150/1s

 

[NSEFAN]

If the 165’s retain 5 seats across and the 166’s are 4, then surely, once the public realise the difference they will head for the 166’s - especially if they have working air cooling? The problem could then be that the 166 section becomes full, the train moves off and the ‘overflow’ of passengers are not able to access the spare capacity in the 165 section of the train due to lack of through gangway. Perhaps at the next station, ‘overflow’ passengers will try and hop off and back into the 165 section?

Are the public really that observant? The regular commuter could well be, but the occasional day tripper to Bath is probably not...

 

[BestWestern]

If the 165’s retain 5 seats across and the 166’s are 4, then surely, once the public realise the difference they will head for the 166’s - especially if they have working air cooling? The problem could then be that the 166 section becomes full, the train moves off and the ‘overflow’ of passengers are not able to access the spare capacity in the 165 section of the train due to lack of through gangway. Perhaps at the next station, ‘overflow’ passengers will try and hop off and back into the 165 section?

I very much doubt it. There are a fair few 2+2 bays in the 165s anyway, so they'd probably just eye one of those up with a view to pouncing when it became empty.