Voyagers or Stadler FLIRT to replace 158's and 159's on SWR /GWR

[coppercapped]

The 800s and 802s are the exact same train, the only difference between them is a larger fuel tank, and a software enhancement to use a larger power output from the engines..

Clarence Yard, in another thread, has clearly and frequently stated, that ALL the Class 80X trains have the same size fuel tank. Fuel consumption tests made in 2017 showed the need for the larger tank. Only the first two or three 800s were delivered with the smaller tank and even these have now been changed.
As you say, the engine settings are software controlled and in the case of the IEP trains tries to maximise reliability and engine life by keeping the power output as low as possible.

The other difference between the classes is that the 802s have larger rheostatic braking resistors on the roofs.

 

[devonexpress]

Clarence Yard, in another thread, has clearly and frequently stated, that ALL the Class 80X trains have the same size fuel tank. Fuel consumption tests made in 2017 showed the need for the larger tank. Only the first two or three 800s were delivered with the smaller tank and even these have now been changed.
As you say, the engine settings are software controlled and in the case of the IEP trains tries to maximise reliability and engine life by keeping the power output as low as possible.

The other difference between the classes is that the 802s have larger rheostatic braking resistors on the roofs.

So in theory, apart from the resistor packs, which could be changed during the first/next heavy inspection, the could effectively be changed to 802s. Whilst it's a good idea to limit the output and reduce wear, its means you have a fleet where only 36 out of 93 trains can go to Devon or Cornwall, and lets say a major mess up happened, only 1 or 2 of these might be at Paddington. It would make much more sense to have them all as one class, especially as most of the mainline network is now electrified where it was meant to be.

I also came up with the idea, that maybe West Midlands trains could increase its order of 195/196s, this would then allow the 172s to be released, replacing the Class 150s for GWR.

 

[Energy]

I also came up with the idea, that maybe West Midlands trains could increase its order of 195/196s, this would then allow the 172s to be released, replacing the Class 150s for GWR.

Could work, doubt WMR wan't to let them go, they seem to like 172s.

 

[devonexpress]

Could work, doubt WMR wan't to let them go, they seem to like 172s.

With the 170s going soon, the 172s will be the sole Turbostar fleet, running alongside the 195/196s, Ordering more of them allows the Snow Hill routes to become a standard fleet, and therefore sales WMR money in maintenance,type training. It then allows GWR to have more modern trains to replace the ageing 150's.

*UPDATE* Having looked at it, GWR have 16 150s, and 17 158 sets, if you ignore
the Class 150/0 and the Class 143s, both of which are due off lease.
You could in theory replace both regional fleets with Class 172's which are capable of 100mph. It would mean Chiltern losing 4 Class 172s, but 4 Class 158s went to TFW, releasing their Class 170s, which could go to Chiltern. The cab's with non gangways could be modified to become more Class 172/2's.

 

[Bevan Price]

I know "THEY" won't let it happen, but I think the preferred solution would be to extend 3rd rail to Salisbury, and use a 3rd-rail compatible bi-mode train throughout, with only part of the train proceeding west of Salisbury. If platform lengths permit, then 5 + 5 combinations would be best; otherwise 3+3+3 formations might be needed. Through gangway connections should be regarded as essential. The 158s and 159s are now approaching 30 years old, so I think they should be contemplating their replacements in the next few years.

 

[Energy]

16 150s

No they have 20 /2s (the GWR wikipedia says 19 but that appears to be wrong)

17 158 sets

15 I think, the 158 wikipedia page says 18 if you look under fleet details though

but 4 Class 158s went to TFW, releasing their Class 170s

TfW only just got their turbostars, I heavily doubt they would be going this early

With the 170s going soon, the 172s will be the sole Turbostar fleet, running alongside the 195/196s

Correct, although Chiltern operate in the same area so if it was a major issue WMR could share with Chiltern.

the Class 143s, both of which are due off lease.

I believe the 143s are staying after the PRM deadline, just attached to a sprinter.

The cab's with non gangways could be modified to become more Class 172/2's.

It has been suggested before and it isn't that big of a deal, the 172/0s haven't recieved a 172/2 (and /3) cab while they were being refurbished for WMR.

I know "THEY" won't let it happen, but I think the preferred solution would be to extend 3rd rail to Salisbury, and use a 3rd-rail compatible bi-mode train throughout, with only part of the train proceeding west of Salisbury. If platform lengths permit, then 5 + 5 combinations would be best; otherwise 3+3+3 formations might be needed. Through gangway connections should be regarded as essential. The 158s and 159s are now approaching 30 years old, so I think they should be contemplating their replacements in the next few years.

Maybe the 350/2s once they have their batteries? If not then either bimode Flirt or bimode Aventra

 

[devonexpress]

No they have 20 /2s (the GWR wikipedia says 19 but that appears to be wrong)

15 I think, the 158 wikipedia page says 18 if you look under fleet details though

TfW only just got their turbostars, I heavily doubt they would be going this early

Correct, although Chiltern operate in the same area so if it was a major issue WMR could share with Chiltern.

I believe the 143s are staying after the PRM deadline, just attached to a sprinter.

It has been suggested before and it isn't that big of a deal, the 172/0s haven't recieved a 172/2 (and /3) cab while they were being refurbished for WMR.

Maybe the 350/2s once they have their batteries? If not then either bimode Flirt or bimode Aventra

The GWR one at the top and the 150/2 page says 17 which is what I was going with. Either way its enough to replace all of them. The Class 143s have been granted an extension until more 150s are freed up from other duties, as it's now a legal requirement of the franchise for x2 units(4 coaches) to operate Exmouth to Paignton.

Why would Chiltern and WMR share operating the same trains, simple fact THEY WON'T. It would be better in the long run to order more 195/196s.

The 172/0s might not have now, because WMR want to do things on the cheap, the idea is, as i've said for GWR to have a consistent fleet, that can be couples up as 4 or 5 carriages with the ability to walk through, as per 150 or 158. Let me stress, this is about getting the maximum benefit for all TOC's. The 17s allow GWR to remove two different types of train, both which require driver,s guards,station staff, maintenance to have individual training programms which cost money, by having a generic fleet of standard 100mph trains, you ca match or be closer to IET timings down in the West, speeding up the timetable even more, and it also gives the fleet more flexibility, I.E Cardiff to Plymouth/Penzance trains being run and having the same timing/speed as per a train doing Exmouth to Paignton.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe the 350/2s once they have their batteries?

Ticks a few boxes (corridor connection, faster than the 90mph stock currently manage at the London end but without the wasted space required for 125mph stock, can be high capacity, mechanically similar to existing SWR stock etc), although Basingstoke - Exeter - Basingstoke must be about 250 miles (?), so I'd hope that the battery technology would be tested on something shorter first (e.g. Uckfield).

The problem I'd have with the 350/2s though is that the current service seems optimised around 9x23m (or is it 10x23m?) services at busier times - could all of the stations east of Salisbury copy with 12x20m? (because, if not, 8x20m is going to be quite a capacity reduction)

 

[Energy]

Why would Chiltern and WMR share operating the same trains, simple fact THEY WON'T. It would be better in the long run to order more 195/196s.

I was suggesting sharing depots, not trains. Anyway, WMR seem to be fine right now with the 172 and 196 fleet plan, WMR aren't forced to give up units just because they could go to another operator, GWR can order bimode Aventras or Flirts or Civitys which would be fairly similar and would allow for a much bigger fleet as these trains should replace the 165, 166, 158 and 150s as all are aging, the 165/166s and 158s are about the same age at a bit under 30 years old.
For new trains I would suggest the following plan
2020 - New trains ordered, the franchise is ending in a couple months
2022 - Introduction to take over 165/166s, the 165/166s in best condition can go to temporarily take over 150 duties
Once all 165/166s cascaded to 150 routes or scraped - replace the 158s
Once the 158s replaced - replace 165/166s on 150 routes.

The 172/0s might not have now, because WMR want to do things on the cheap

Not sure what you are talking about, would bombardier even make new cabs when their are so few being wanted, the cabs haven't been made for 8/9 years and lots of work would be required to change them. WMR do also have money, but they wouldn't invest in something which is expensive and these units don't operate coupled on some routes, like the Leamington to Nuneaton.

 

[devonexpress]

I was suggesting sharing depots, not trains. Anyway, WMR seem to be fine right now with the 172 and 196 fleet plan, WMR aren't forced to give up units just because they could go to another operator, GWR can order bimode Aventras or Flirts or Civitys which would be fairly similar and would allow for a much bigger fleet as these trains should replace the 165, 166, 158 and 150s as all are aging, the 165/166s and 158s are about the same age at a bit under 30 years old.
For new trains I would suggest the following plan
2020 - New trains ordered, the franchise is ending in a couple months
2022 - Introduction to take over 165/166s, the 165/166s in best condition can go to temporarily take over 150 duties
Once all 165/166s cascaded to 150 routes or scraped - replace the 158s
Once the 158s replaced - replace 165/166s on 150 routes.


Not sure what you are talking about, would bombardier even make new cabs when their are so few being wanted, the cabs haven't been made for 8/9 years and lots of work would be required to change them. WMR do also have money, but they wouldn't invest in something which is expensive and these units don't operate coupled on some routes, like the Leamington to Nuneaton.

The cabs are only glass fibre, not that difficult to make.

The Class 172s have less capacity than a 150 seating wise, but would be better suited to Devon/Cornwall. Having an entire fleet to match the capacity needs of Devon/Cornwall compared to Bristol/Bath just wouldn't work, you'd still need two seperate fleets. I did previously suggest Hitachi 385s, but either bi mode or diesel operated which would be similar to the 800/802s, but to be honest the 172 idea actually makes more sense, because it solves several other problems across the network in regards to mixed fleets.

 

[43096]

No they have 20 /2s (the GWR wikipedia says 19 but that appears to be wrong)

15 I think, the 158 wikipedia page says 18 if you look under fleet details though

It’s 20 x 2-car 158 and 1 x “proper” 3-car but with 9 x 2-car reformed to give 6 x 3-car which gives 11 x 2-car and 7 x 3-car formed currently.