Narberth Tunnel

[Pokelet]

Have we actually had confirmation they don’t fit through Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just foam and wibble? They manage to cope fine with Ledbury Tunnel - which is so tight that HSTs aren’t allowed through with powercar sliding doors locked out of use as they provide the only means of passenger egress due to how tight the Tunnel is...

Ledbury tunnel is in a pretty much straight line though although on a slope and with a slight curve at the Colwall end. Granted, it is tight though - finest limestone and Victorian engineering dug by hand

 

[PHILIPE]

Many thanks for the responses regarding my query.

Normally, on summer Saturdays, a HST goes from Swansea to Pembroke Dock early. It then operates all the way back east to London. Another HST leaves London bound for Pembroke Dock. It then returns to London in the late afternoon.

I'd be surprised if it continued after this year as the days of crowds of people travelling to Tenby and other locations from London on Saturdays and returning the following week are a thing of the past now due to changing patterns. It would be interesting to know the loadings on these for passengers travelling through. The ATW, sorry TFW, units are there but with down time while the GWR services run.

 

[PHILIPE]

Have we actually had confirmation they don’t fit through Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just foam and wibble? They manage to cope fine with Ledbury Tunnel - which is so tight that HSTs aren’t allowed through with powercar sliding doors locked out of use as they provide the only means of passenger egress due to how tight the Tunnel is...

IETs have already worked through Ledbury Tunnel

 

[jimm]

Have we actually had confirmation they don’t fit through Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just foam and wibble? They manage to cope fine with Ledbury Tunnel - which is so tight that HSTs aren’t allowed through with powercar sliding doors locked out of use as they provide the only means of passenger egress due to how tight the Tunnel is...

I can only echo Pokelet's points - the issue at Narberth is the curvature of the tunnel. It is part of a tight horseshoe curve and I doubt the Victorians were thinking about accommodating the protruding ends of 26m coaches when they were building it. Ledbury is a tight fit, but the coach ends are not protruding.

As PhilipE indicates, the trains are in essence crowdbusters run to give ATW a hand with summer Saturday day-trippers, rather than throngs of long-distance passengers staying in Tenby for the week who might justify a service all the way from London.

While GWR had stock available that could assist with this sort of thing, fair enough, but it's not exactly their day job and the new trains are designed for that role, not to fit through one awkward tunnel on a branch line for a few Saturdays each year.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It was to fly the flag for Conservatives in Pembrokeshire pure pork barrel stuff...

 

[JN114]

I can only echo Pokelet's points - the issue at Narberth is the curvature of the tunnel. It is part of a tight horseshoe curve and I doubt the Victorians were thinking about accommodating the protruding ends of 26m coaches when they were building it. Ledbury is a tight fit, but the coach ends are not protruding.

But, with respect, yours and pokelets points appear to just be hearsay.

I know it’s likely a tight fit; but where has the whole “they won’t fit” actually come from?

I’ll reiterate a point I made months ago without answer - if I recall correctly it was in the spec that the body shell design should be such that they can go anywhere a MkIII coach can.

There have been many “they’re too long for X” statements made over recent years. Every place they’ve been supposedly too big to fit has turned out to be complete nonsense - Saltash; Ledbury; Paddington. IETs have visited all the above without any issue.

Do they actually not fit in Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just more unfounded hearsay?

 

[edwin_m]

But, with respect, yours and pokelets points appear to just be hearsay.

I know it’s likely a tight fit; but where has the whole “they won’t fit” actually come from?

I’ll reiterate a point I made months ago without answer - if I recall correctly it was in the spec that the body shell design should be such that they can go anywhere a MkIII coach can.

There have been many “they’re too long for X” statements made over recent years. Every place they’ve been supposedly too big to fit has turned out to be complete nonsense - Saltash; Ledbury; Paddington. IETs have visited all the above without any issue.

Do they actually not fit in Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just more unfounded hearsay?

As I understand it the bogie centres are the same as the Mk3, so assuming the body width is also the same the "throw" on the inside of a curve will be the same too. The extra length is all outside the bogie centres but the ends are more tapered than a Mk3. However geometry says there has got to be a radius below which the corners stick out further than they do on a Mk3. I have no idea what radius this would be.

There have been lots of platform works said to be to accommodate 80x units but they may have been about stepping distance rather than actual clearances.

 

[JN114]

As I understand it the bogie centres are the same as the Mk3, so assuming the body width is also the same the "throw" on the inside of a curve will be the same too. The extra length is all outside the bogie centres but the ends are more tapered than a Mk3. However geometry says there has got to be a radius below which the corners stick out further than they do on a Mk3. I have no idea what radius this would be.

Absolutely; but while relatively slow the corner radius isn’t particularly extreme in Narberth Tunnel.

Which still takes us back to the original question. Do they *actually* not fit; or is it all just speculation and hearsay.

I know it wasn’t on the routes to be originally route cleared under IEP - but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit; that just means the DfT didn’t envisage a need for them to do so.

 

[jimm]

But, with respect, yours and pokelets points appear to just be hearsay.

I know it’s likely a tight fit; but where has the whole “they won’t fit” actually come from?

I’ll reiterate a point I made months ago without answer - if I recall correctly it was in the spec that the body shell design should be such that they can go anywhere a MkIII coach can.

There have been many “they’re too long for X” statements made over recent years. Every place they’ve been supposedly too big to fit has turned out to be complete nonsense - Saltash; Ledbury; Paddington. IETs have visited all the above without any issue.

Do they actually not fit in Narberth Tunnel? Or is it just more unfounded hearsay?

In the cases of Paddington and Saltash, the thing that got the rumour-mongers going was the curved sections of the platforms.

Shaving a platform edge for a few metres - and I've no idea if that anything was actually done in either case - is a rather different matter to applying similar treatment to an entire tunnel, where there is a while lot more masonry to deal with than paving slabs on a platform edge.

In the case of Ledbury, anyone with any understanding of that tunnel could see claims an IET would not fit was nonsense from the off - as noted above, it is near enough straight all the way, with a slightly curved section at one end, so there was never going to be a problem.

The fact that the Pembroke Dock line has never been on a list of routes to be cleared for IETs is a pretty big clue as to there being an issue with Narberth Tunnel - as was the announcement by the Transport Secretary that Network Rail would "develop options" for Pembroke Dock IET services. If there was no issue, then why wouldn't he have announced such a service there and then and had it written into the GWR service level commitment from December 2018?

We are now almost 10 months on since Mr Grayling made that announcement, but we have yet to hear a dicky-bird. If sorting out Narberth Tunnel was a quick win, I'm sure the DFT would have rushed to announce the glad tidings as soon as possible, but even if it is feasible in engineering terms, whether doing work on the tunnel is value for money for a limited summer Saturday service is another matter.

The evidence may be circumstantial, but there is rather a lot of it.

 

[Pokelet]

In reality, hear say on not (I used to travel weekly through Ledbury) what this comes down to is trying to retain the perceived prestige of a direct route to London. In reality this is for what? 10 weeks per year 2 trains per day and not all of the HST services make the full journey? The railway is too often used for political point scoring, this is what Narberth will come down to. I have never travelled the line but i know the area well enough and its never somewhere that I have used rail transport. Why? Because the service is infrequent so what it needs is a better, regular service. Not an IET twice a day on a Saturday for 10 or so weeks of the year.

 

[D365]

The fact that the Pembroke Dock line has never been on a list of routes to be cleared for IETs is a pretty big clue as to there being an issue with Narberth Tunnel - as was the announcement by the Transport Secretary that Network Rail would "develop options" for Pembroke Dock IET services. If there was no issue, then why wouldn't he have announced such a service there and then and had it written into the GWR service level commitment from December 2018?

I wouldn’t be shocked if Network Rail didn’t know that they were going to “develop options” for Narberth before this announcement.

 

[Envoy]

I actually travelled on ‘The Pembroke Coast Express’ HST to Tenby one Saturday 2 years ago and it was pretty full all the way to Tenby. However, I agree with ‘Pokelet’ (above) who stated that what this line really needs is a more frequent service of shorter trains. For this line - as well as that to Milford Haven to have one train every 2 hours is appalling. Another problem is the time it takes to reach south- west Wales from everywhere else. From next year, the Inter City Express Trains will be doing Cardiff to London in 1 hour 45 minutes. It takes around 3 hours to get from Cardiff to Tenby - so, time wise, this corner of SWWales is more remote from the Welsh Capital than London in the other direction. I also note that it is possible to drive from Cardiff to Tenby in about 1 hour 35 minutes. (The road route is shorter and straighter than the rail route).

So, what can be done to try and make, for example, day return rail trips more viable between Cardiff and Tenby and vice versa? Clearly, going into and out of Swansea takes a fair bit of time - as does the same thing at Carmarthen. Perhaps fast limited stop services could operate between Cardiff & Carmarthen - possibly using the Swansea District Line - which could have a new P&R station by the M4 at Morriston? (The speed limit on the SWDL should be increased - if possible). Such a fast service would also benefit Llanelli - where with careful timing - a connection could be made with the Heart of Wales Trains. From Carmarthen, hopefully an hourly service could be implemented for both the south Pembrokeshire line as well as that to Milford Haven. This could be made up of trains that have directly come from the east as well as those that have come out of Swansea.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Many thanks for the responses regarding my query.

Normally, on summer Saturdays, a HST goes from Swansea to Pembroke Dock early. It then operates all the way back east to London. Another HST leaves London bound for Pembroke Dock. It then returns to London in the late afternoon.

Thanks; I've found the direct down working now - it's 08.45 off Paddington.

 

[Chester1]

The easiest solution would be to use to put together 2 mini HSTs. Its still a waste of money but would be cheaper than any significant work on the tunnel. 8 carriages from mini HSTs could be put together in Exeter on a Friday evening then run to London to run to Pembroke and back on a Saturday and again on Sunday before running a Sunday evening London to Penzance and being seperated back to 2 mini HSTs. Huge staffing costs, timetabling issues and hassle but better than spending money on the tunnel.

 

[jimm]

The easiest solution would be to ensure that the operator of local services in Wales actually has enough rolling stock in its fleet to provide some sort of summer Saturday capacity boost between the major cities and towns in South Wales and Tenby - such rolling stock would come in handy the rest of the week in plenty of other places in Wales anyway.

 

[Chester1]

The easiest solution would be to ensure that the operator of local services in Wales actually has enough rolling stock in its fleet to provide some sort of summer Saturday capacity boost between the major cities and towns in South Wales and Tenby - such rolling stock would come in handy the rest of the week in plenty of other places in Wales anyway.

I meant the easiest solution to continue to run services from London to Pembroke Dock as Grayling has promised. In a rational world your solution would obviously be the correct one! I would guess that as the only loco hauled services out of Paddington they would have some appeal for enthusiasts and people who don't like 800s and 802s. Quite what timings could be managed with 2 HST power cars geared for 4 carriages but hauling 8 carriages is another problem but not insurmountable at weekends.

 

[PHILIPE]

I meant the easiest solution to continue to run services from London to Pembroke Dock as Grayling has promised. In a rational world your solution would obviously be the correct one! I would guess that as the only loco hauled services out of Paddington they would have some appeal for enthusiasts and people who don't like 800s and 802s. Quite what timings could be managed with 2 HST power cars geared for 4 carriages but hauling 8 carriages is another problem but not insurmountable at weekends.

You don't believe what Grayling says, do you

 

[Chester1]

You don't believe what Grayling says, do you

No but I believe that he cares about Conservative votes in Pembrokeshire! It could be mandatory part of the next direct award and because there would be no infrastructure work required the cost would be hidden within all of GWRs opperating costs. I am not advocating this as a good idea but it is a much better idea than spending millions on Narberth tunnel.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm sure Failing has already cancelled the work with Mays approval anyway

Totally agree if you had Infrastructure £ for west Wales then upgrading line speeds on the Swansea District Line and a Swansea Parkway station are the route to go.

However this has the potential to be used as a stick to beat the Tories with in Wales. "Tory promises are all lies" so there will be a pantomime around it no doubt!

 

[D365]

The easiest solution would be to ensure that the operator of local services in Wales actually has enough rolling stock in its fleet to provide some sort of summer Saturday capacity boost between the major cities and towns in South Wales and Tenby - such rolling stock would come in handy the rest of the week in plenty of other places in Wales anyway.

One would know who to turn to for that end

 

[Rhydgaled]

if 800s will go through the tunnel - fine. But don't spend money on it, which could be better focused on improving the exisiting services.

I agree; before the announcemnt of 800s to Tenby, I wrote a few letters regarding the expected withdrawal of GWR services west of Carmarthen to one or two of the MPs/AMs round here. I don't think that my comments were really heeded, as Tenby town council and others with more 'clout' probably made their voices heard, but if we pretend that it was only me that raised this issue than the announcment was rather an unintended consequence. My hope was that one of the following would happen:

• A careful assessment of the line to discover that 9-car class 800s would in fact fit with no infrustructure work
• Retention of full-length IC125s for Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance services, which would have meant GWR still had suitable stock for through Paddington - Pembroke Dock services
• Cascade of mark 2 aircons or mark 3s to ATW's successor, allowing them to run 5-car trains between Cardiff and Tenby / Pembroke Dock, to be replaced by mark 4s when available
• Cascade of a large number of class 156s to ATW's successor to enable all Pembroke & Tenby daytime diagrams to be 4-car on busy days in the summer

Throwing money at Narberth tunnel (or any other infrustructure constraint that does not effect Sprinter-family DMUs and 175s) to allow 800s to run to Tenby was NOT what I wanted.

Then you have Spittal Tunnel (think that's what it's called) on the Fishguard branch.

Nowadays in my personal opinion, I don't think the traffic to FGH especially for the ferry doesn't warrant anything bigger than a 2-car DMU, the times I've been over on the afternoon sailing and the train is usually half full, off hand the only time I can remember it being full and standing was when that volcano blew in Iceland back in 2010 and many flights were grounded so many people made use of the Rail and Sail option.

I believe Spittal Tunnel is straighter than the Narberth one, but I may be wrong. Also, although the Fishguard branch is single track now, the Great Western had plans to double it, so Spittal tunnel may be wide enough for double-track (again, I don't know for sure). In previous years (and not just during the volcanic ash event) ATW have strengthened the Fishguard boat train (I've seen 150+153 and 150+Pacer on it in the past; probably a pair of 150s together too) in the summer, so it does need more than a 2-car unit sometimes.

Hot news! I've received a reply from GWR which redirected me to their general enquiry page with their addition of "nothing found for intercityexpress".

Sigh.... that's not what I expected of them.

So I've reiterated my question, have asked for a personal reply and have informed them that I will be sharing their answer in public forums, etc.

I think what is needed here is a Freedom Of Information Request, asking whether Network Rail has done a study to establish whether class 800s can run to Tenby and, if not, how much it would cost to enable that.

The only question is whether the FOI should be sent to Network Rail or the DfT; GWR will just pass you on to one or the other I expect.

The IEP plan cut the InterCity services back to Carmarthen as their out of gauge for Narberth Tunnel. DfT/NR had absolutely no intention to do the work necessary to make it happen so the Pembroke Dock branch would lose its through summer Saturday trans from London at least.

When I was asking around before, it sounded like nobody knew whether 800s would be able to run to Tenby; DfT just hadn't asked for IEP trains to go down there. I got the impression (perhaps incorrect) that, when Hitachi's IEP train with 26m vehicles was announced, Network Rail did not even have an intention to find out whether they would fit through Narberth tunnel. If I'm right, NR simply weren't asked by the DfT to make IEP trains run into Pembrokeshire, which suggests DfT had already decided to cut the service at Carmarthen.

Grayling has seemingly "promised" they will continue in the cancel the wires announcement. Th irony being the disruptive engineering work that DfT tell us the magic bi miode trains will save us from will of course be necessary to get the same trains through Narberth tunnel,

Unless of course they actually sent out somebody to measure up and found that the class 800s would fit after all, without any major works. Then Grayling could safely announce the continuation of the London services, in the knowledge that it wouldn't cost much.

Have we actually had confirmation they don’t fit through Narberth Tunnel?

No, not as far as I know. All I know is that:

• DfT's route clearance map for IEP did not include any clearance in Pembrokeshire
• a (former?) rail employee wrote (in a magazine) that he doubted a 26m coach would pass through given that a slight misaligned of the track in the past caused a shorter vehicle to collide with the tunnel wall
• the tunnel is a very tight, single-track, bore on a fairly serious curve

I'd be surprised if it continued after this year as the days of crowds of people travelling to Tenby and other locations from London on Saturdays and returning the following week are a thing of the past now due to changing patterns. It would be interesting to know the loadings on these for passengers travelling through. The ATW, sorry TFW, units are there but with down time while the GWR services run.

I've been out filming the FirstGWR services most summer Saturdays for the past few years. I don't often go to the stations on the branch, but when I've been to Tenby I've observed that the extra capacity is certainly needed sometimes. I think I've seen over 4 carriages worth of passengers getting on/off GWR trains at Tenby on a sunny Saturday (when I've gone to see the train in the rain I think it was a fair bit quieter). I've also been on a full-and-standing Pacer on one of ATW's Tenby services on a summer Saturday. 4-car DMUs all week (or at least SAT and SUN) in the summer might be more appropriate than two long trains each way on Saturdays only.

what this line really needs is a more frequent service of shorter trains. For this line - as well as that to Milford Haven to have one train every 2 hours is appalling.

I completely agree regarding the Milford branch. I'm not so sure about the Pembroke & Tenby; the journey time from Pembroke Dock to Whitland is just so long that I'm not sure you'd get many passengers even if it was an hourly service. Maybe the thing to do is go hourly Swansea-Tenby with alternate trains continuing to Pembroke Dock (prefrably with an express bus accepting rail tickets from Pembroke Dock and Pembroke non-stop to Carmarthen in the other hours).

Another problem is the time it takes to reach south- west Wales from everywhere else. From next year, the Inter City Express Trains will be doing Cardiff to London in 1 hour 45 minutes. It takes around 3 hours to get from Cardiff to Tenby - so, time wise, this corner of SWWales is more remote from the Welsh Capital than London in the other direction. I also note that it is possible to drive from Cardiff to Tenby in about 1 hour 35 minutes. (The road route is shorter and straighter than the rail route).

So, what can be done to try and make, for example, day return rail trips more viable between Cardiff and Tenby and vice versa? Clearly, going into and out of Swansea takes a fair bit of time - as does the same thing at Carmarthen. Perhaps fast limited stop services could operate between Cardiff & Carmarthen - possibly using the Swansea District Line - which could have a new P&R station by the M4 at Morriston? (The speed limit on the SWDL should be increased - if possible). Such a fast service would also benefit Llanelli - where with careful timing - a connection could be made with the Heart of Wales Trains. From Carmarthen, hopefully an hourly service could be implemented for both the south Pembrokeshire line as well as that to Milford Haven. This could be made up of trains that have directly come from the east as well as those that have come out of Swansea.

Here, here. Ideally, there would be a target of Carmarthen-Cardiff in 70 minutes (to be faster than driving) with just three stops, Port Talbot Parkway, Morriston Parkway and Llanelli. An hourly service on that route, with alternate trains continuing to Milford Haven (and, when there's a ferry to connect with, Fishguard) is what I'd like to see, alongside a train every 30mins between Swansea and Carmarthen, with 1tph extending to Milford/Fishguard (alternating) and some of the others to Pembroke Dock.

That doesn't work without a passing loop somewhere between Narberth and Kilgetty/Saundersfoot though.

would mean relatively short trains (sprinters or 2 car 170’s or 175’s) west of Carmarthen. Then they would like a very fast train to get them to/from the east without going into Swansea. I would suggest that such a fast service could be a direct service to/from London using a 5 car Class 800 to join with another unit at Cardiff or a fast train heading to/from Manchester. Such a train could either use the Landore link line or the Swansea District Line - and only stop at Llanelli, Morriston Parkway (M4 J45), Port Talbot, & Cardiff before heading off to Manchester/ London.

For rolling stock, I would like to see:

• class 156s on Fishguard/Milford-Swansea (these would miss out Kidwelly and Ferryside; but serve all other stations that are currently open)
• class 156s or maybe 170s on Pembroke Dock - Swansea (all stops, including any new stations (eg. St. Clears))
• class 175s (mix of 2-car and 3-car units) and perhaps some 158s on Cardiff-Morriston-Carmarthen-Milford/Fishguard; these would not run through to Manchester or London because longer trains are needed there (the short trains are one reason why I would not have these call at Bridgend).

The easiest solution would be to ensure that the operator of local services in Wales actually has enough rolling stock in its fleet to provide some sort of summer Saturday capacity boost between the major cities and towns in South Wales and Tenby - such rolling stock would come in handy the rest of the week in plenty of other places in Wales anyway.

Agreed; the problem is that ATW currently doesn't have the necessary resources which leaves me concerned about capacity next year if GWR's service is withdrawn.

Totally agree if you had Infrastructure £ for west Wales then upgrading line speeds on the Swansea District Line and a Swansea Parkway station are the route to go.

I agree, all the following should come before major work on getting 800s to Tenby:

• 4-track section(s) between Cardiff and Bridgend to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers
• upgraded linespeeds between Cardiff and Bridgend, on the Swansea District Line and between Ferryside and Carmarthen
• improved signalling to cut headways between Llanelli and Clarbeston Road, allowing the fast Swansea District Line service to travel close behind/ahead of the Swansea stoppers to facilitate good connections
  
• a dynamic loop between Narberth and Kilgetty
• double track between Clarbeston Road and Haverfordwest
• bus lanes in and around Haverfordwest
  
• reopening of the Neyland branch line

 

[PHILIPE]

If one refers to this thread:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-livery.115240/page-107 Post #3197 and the link with the FOI reply, it will be seen that the DFT have no intention of operating IETs beyond Carmarthen. Whether things could change or not in the future, I don't know.

 

[tomuk]

For rolling stock, I would like to see:

• class 156s on Fishguard/Milford-Swansea (these would miss out Kidwelly and Ferryside; but serve all other stations that are currently open)
• class 156s or maybe 170s on Pembroke Dock - Swansea (all stops, including any new stations (eg. St. Clears))

As 21 2car 170s and 12 3 car 170s become available in 2020 from Greater Anglia and West Midlands Railway why would you want 30 year old 75mph 156s with no air con?

 

[Rhydgaled]

As 21 2car 170s and 12 3 car 170s become available in 2020 from Greater Anglia and West Midlands Railway why would you want 30 year old 75mph 156s with no air con?

A few reasons:

• There is nowhere with a linespeed in excess of 75mph between Swansea and Pembroke Dock / Milford Haven / Fishguard Harbour
• 156s have longer windows with slightly less deadspace between them than 170s
• 156s have unit end gangways, making multiple working friendlier and portion working much friendlier
  
• 156s are probably cheaper than 170s, which would help reduce the subsidy / get more services for the same subsidy
• 156s seem to have more comfortable seats and better window alignment than 170s, and probably better legroom than a 2-car 170 with the same number of seats
  
• 156s are also suitable for the Heart Of Wales line, which 170s aren't; a fleet of 156s based at Swansea Landore could cover both routes
  
• I feel that the Milford and Fishguard services should ommit Kidwelly, Ferryside and (if it opens) St. Clears, rather than making them all-stations services and I object to using trains optimised for frequent stops on busy commuter lines (wide doors, lots of standing room) on semi-fast regional services.

If one refers to this thread:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-western-livery.115240/page-107 Post #3197 and the link with the FOI reply, it will be seen that the DFT have no intention of operating IETs beyond Carmarthen. Whether things could change or not in the future, I don't know.

That FOI response is old, well before Grayling's announcement that IETs would run to Tenby after all, and does not answer the question of whether a study has been done to establish whether class 800s could fit through Narberth tunnel.

 

[jimm]

That FOI response is old, well before Grayling's announcement that IETs would run to Tenby after all, and does not answer the question of whether a study has been done to establish whether class 800s could fit through Narberth tunnel.

He did not announce that IETs would run to Tenby, just instructed Network Rail to explore options to see if they could - Mr Grayling carefully gave himself a big fat get-out clause should they come back and say the sums don't add up.

 

[tomuk]

I object to using trains optimised for frequent stops on busy commuter lines (wide doors, lots of standing room) on semi-fast regional services.

I think you need to travel on a 170. Just because the doors are at 1/3 2/3 doesn't mean they are optimised for commuter lines. 170s have been successfully used for all sorts of services including long distance limited stop. If anything longer distance with fewer stops suits them best due to there lower acceleration and higher top speed then a 156.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think you need to travel on a 170.

I have been on 170s, not very often granted, but I have. My objection to them comes partly from my brother telling me 'the doors were in the wrong place' after he returned from a Cardiff-Nottingham journey and partly from a trip I made on an XC 170 between Newport (I think it was) and Gloucester; legroom was non-existant.

Just because the doors are at 1/3 2/3 doesn't mean they are optimised for commuter lines.

It does in my opinion. Optimised being the key word; the suburban door layout doesn't necessarily mean the train will be utterly terrible for other work, but it will be better for commuter services.

If anything longer distance with fewer stops suits them best due to there lower acceleration and higher top speed then a 156.

I've read that sort of comment a few times and thought 'what a stupid design 170s must be'. Similar to Voyagers, the basic technology is sound but the excecution is flawed. In the case of Voyagers, running at 125mph is expensive compared to running at 100mph, as is maintaining the track for the higher speeds. Thus, you would only invest in the high speeds on busy routes and if the route is busy you need a long train, so why only 4/5 coaches? But the big windows are so much better than the narrow slits on Pendolinos. With Turbostars, you have a door layout optimised for frequent (busy) stops but (so I'm told on here) poor acceleration that doesn't help with frequent stops.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I have been on 170s, not very often granted, but I have. My objection to them comes partly from my brother telling me 'the doors were in the wrong place' after he returned from a Cardiff-Nottingham journey and partly from a trip I made on an XC 170 between Newport (I think it was) and Gloucester; legroom was non-existant.

It does in my opinion. Optimised being the key word; the suburban door layout doesn't necessarily mean the train will be utterly terrible for other work, but it will be better for commuter services.

I've read that sort of comment a few times and thought 'what a stupid design 170s must be'. Similar to Voyagers, the basic technology is sound but the excecution is flawed. In the case of Voyagers, running at 125mph is expensive compared to running at 100mph, as is maintaining the track for the higher speeds. Thus, you would only invest in the high speeds on busy routes and if the route is busy you need a long train, so why only 4/5 coaches? But the big windows are so much better than the narrow slits on Pendolinos. With Turbostars, you have a door layout optimised for frequent (busy) stops but (so I'm told on here) poor acceleration that doesn't help with frequent stops.

A 170 should fit Narberth tunnel none the less as should a 156. I don't think West Wales will be any worse off having an (almost) captive fleet of either or a mix at least there not Pacers or 153's.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Oh, 170s would certainly be an improvement over the current 150s; I just think that if both 156s and 170s come to Wales then the former are more suitable for the Pembrokeshire branches and the 170s for Cardiff-Cheltenham/Hereford stoppers*, with the latter being a new service to serve a new Caerleon station. If 170s were to come to Pembrokeshire, I would prefer them on the Tenby route as an all-stops Swansea-PMD service, with 156s on the 'semi-fasts' (all stops but excluding any new stations and omitting Kidwelly and Ferryside) between Swansea and Milford/Fishguard. That's partly based on my asumption that the longest journey most passengers would make on these being Swansea-Tenby, which is marginly shorter (in terms of journey time) than Swansea-Milford or Swansea-Fishguard.

* Although I'd rather see Electrostars with batteries, if they would have the necessary off-wires range, to make use of GWML electrification

 

[Gareth Marston]

* Although I'd rather see Electrostars with batteries, if they would have the necessary off-wires range, to make use of GWML electrification

I doubt they would have enough juice to get up Llanvihangel bank.