paddington to reading local trains

[ess]

are there any stations which limit the local trains to 5 carriages between paddington and reading (or oxford) or is the reason just a lack of rolling stock?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

According to Quail, all GWML relief platforms on the Paddington-Reading stretch can take at least 7 cars...

 

[tbtc]

I suspect one of the reasons for the short DMUs is that the "non standard" 165/166s can't be easily cascaded elsewhere, nor can additional 165/166s be taken from other TOCs.

Chiltern obviously have some 165s, but if Network South East had ordered 158s for the Thames Valley lines (since these were the units the rest of BR was introducing on equivalent diesel lines at the same time) then there was more scope for either

(1) FGW cascading the 158s to another TOC (e.g. FGW) and ordering longer trains for the Thames Valley routes (since 158s are cleared to work over most lines, unlike 165/166s)

...or...

(2) FGW acquiring more 158s from another TOC (e.g. when TPE were getting 185s to replace them) to lengthen their trains.

Having 165/1666s has (in my eyes) made it harder to upgrade/improve/ lengthen the Thames Valley services. Hopefully all of this will be resolved by electrification, with four coach EMUs the norm on most routes (possibly 319s, but who knows)

 

[LexyBoy]

6 car trains are fairly common on the stoppers - more than this would need three units, for which I'd imagine there isn't enough stock.

If electrification happens and the Turbos are replaced with 4-car EMUs, I'd hope that all platforms can take 8-car trains (obviously this will have to happen for Crossrail anyway), otherwise it could see shorter trains on some services!

 

[anthony263]

6 car trains are fairly common on the stoppers - more than this would need three units, for which I'd imagine there isn't enough stock.

If electrification happens and the Turbos are replaced with 4-car EMUs, I'd hope that all platforms can take 8-car trains (obviously this will have to happen for Crossrail anyway), otherwise it could see shorter trains on some services!

Wasnt the crossrail proposal to have 5 carriage sets. running in pairs on some peak time services? or is that just the services that will run to/from heathrow airport?

 

[Drsatan]

Wasnt the crossrail proposal to have 5 carriage sets. running in pairs on some peak time services? or is that just the services that will run to/from heathrow airport?

Looks like all services will be five cars long, operating in pairs during the rush hour, according to this link.

Crossrail have missed out on a huge opportunity by stating that the tunnels will only be designed with single-deck trains in mind - running double deck trains (like the RER in Paris) would have nearly doubled capacity.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I agree; it would be nice to have a fleet of Z20500s for Crossrail.

 

[mallard]

if Network South East had ordered 158s for the Thames Valley lines

Apparently in about 1987, that was the plan. I wonder why it changed? NSE wanting a stronger brand image? Trains that couldn't be "stolen" by other regions? Delays getting the 158s into service (NSE didn't actually get any until 1993 (as 159s))?

 

[Nym]

You wanna try fitting a GC Guage tunnel under central London...

Good luck...

 

[Zoe]

Delays getting the 158s into service (NSE didn't actually get any until 1993 (as 159s))?

That was only due to Regional Railways ordering too many 158s and Network SouthEast needing a replacement stock for the Waterloo to Exeter route at the same time.

 

[jopsuk]

I do wonder if they'd ordered later, and RR wanted all the 158s, whether NSE would have had a further diesel Networker design for the South west

 

[Zoe]

I do wonder if they'd ordered later, and RR wanted all the 158s, whether NSE would have had a further diesel Networker design for the South west

If they had waited longer they may have missed their chance to order due to impending privatization. They would most likely have then been stuck with loco and coaches until South West Trains took over when they would likely have been replaced by 170s.

 

[tbtc]

Apparently in about 1987, that was the plan. I wonder why it changed? NSE wanting a stronger brand image? Trains that couldn't be "stolen" by other regions? Delays getting the 158s into service (NSE didn't actually get any until 1993 (as 159s))?

Great link, cheers - everything seemed so "modern" back then (phone cards!)

158s on the Thames Valley routes would have meant it was easier to cascade them away elsewhere to allow new trains there. Or to allow Thames Trains/FGW to pinch more 158s from other TOCs.

The "politics" under BR is funny now in hindsight, but some of the tricks that areas needed to try (to avoid losing "their" stock) were fascinating.

 

[sprinterguy]

I do wonder if they'd ordered later, and RR wanted all the 158s, whether NSE would have had a further diesel Networker design for the South west

Such a Networker design (in an electric format) was under development as privatisation approached. However it was much cheaper and quicker to acquire unwanted 158s from Regional Railways for their requirements. Zoe is probably right in saying that if this hadn't happened then new stock wouldn't have arrived on the line until South West Trains arrived on the scene: The original five 168s that entered service with Chiltern in 1997/8 were originally a BR order for a longer-distance Networker style train for the Chiltern route.

 

[swt_passenger]

Looks like all services will be five cars long, operating in pairs during the rush hour, according to this link.

You misread it I think. The tender is for 200m trains (10 x 20m cars) for Crossrail. Previously it was intended to run 5 car trains in pairs, but that has definitely changed.

In hindsight though, the decision to have platform edge doors in the central section always made it likely that fixed formations would have to be used.

A couple of stations on the GWML where the local nimby faction has objected to platform lengthening will have to use SDO.

 

[Buttsy]

Apparently in about 1987, that was the plan. I wonder why it changed? NSE wanting a stronger brand image? Trains that couldn't be "stolen" by other regions? Delays getting the 158s into service (NSE didn't actually get any until 1993 (as 159s))?

The 165s & 166s were built for NSE on the new 'standard' networker design and were built to take advantage of the extra guage clearance on the Western region. This is why there are now problems with cascading this stock on electrification to replace such things as pacers as not all WR branches can accept the guage of a 165 or 166.

 

[Chris125]

Crossrail have missed out on a huge opportunity by stating that the tunnels will only be designed with single-deck trains in mind - running double deck trains (like the RER in Paris) would have nearly doubled capacity.

There is no way the cost of increasing the gauge out to Shenfield and Reading could ever be justified - besides, with Crossrail being more like a tube line in Central London, the dwell times of DD stock arent good enough.

Chris

 

[turbo mick]

simple answer there isnt enough stock the service is so intensive now compared to Nse days during the day its 4 trains an hour between rdg-padd including the oxford services and the peak times thats even more