What is the Point of 158’s on The Exeter > Barnstaple / Exmouth branch lines?

[Envoy]

I see that 158’s are being used on the Exeter to Barnstaple route and on the Exmouth branch line (the latter being mainly 150’s). Now neither of these lines need 90mph trains and being as 3 coaches should suffice, why aren’t 165/6’s being used on these lines? Surely, the 158’s would be better employed on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route in 4 or 5 car formation being as they have a through corridor connection? The use of Turbos in multiple on this route does of course mean no through corridor connection. Of course, it could well be that the wider 165/6’s don’t ‘fit’ the Barnstaple branch line.

(Some services on the Cardiff > Portsmouth route are 158’s though most are 165/6’s).

 

[superalbs]

Fairly sure 166s have made it to Barny and Okehampton.

 

[Starmill]

Turbos are used on those routes. There aren't actually that many Turbos available however given the number that are still at Reading.

 

[NSEFAN]

Maybe it is the only stock available, if Turbos are being used on higher density routes already?

 

[swt_passenger]

Knock on effects of the lack of 769s, I suggest.

 

[150219]

I see that 158’s are being used on the Exeter to Barnstaple route and on the Exmouth branch line (the latter being mainly 150’s). Now neither of these lines need 90mph trains and being as 3 coaches should suffice, why aren’t 165/6’s being used on these lines? Surely, the 158’s would be better employed on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route in 4 or 5 car formation being as they have a through corridor connection? The use of Turbos in multiple on this route does of course mean no through corridor connection. Of course, it could well be that the wider 165/6’s don’t ‘fit’ the Barnstaple branch line.

(Some services on the Cardiff > Portsmouth route are 158’s though most are 165/6’s).

The 165/1 + 166 fleet are 90mph, so speed shouldn't make any difference for their use. Their use seems to be reasonably widespread throughout the GWR network, but a through corridor connection can be just as useful on the Devon branches particularly in the summer when they become quite busy.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Surely, the 158’s would be better employed on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route in 4 or 5 car formation being as they have a through corridor connection?

So how does 3 x 3 car 158s on the Barney Branch translate to 4 or 5 car 158s on the Pompey to Cardiff route?

As has been said before there aren’t enough 158s to take over the Pompey to Cardiff route.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So how does 3 x 3 car 158s on the Barney Branch translate to 4 or 5 car 158s on the Pompey to Cardiff route?

As has been said before there aren’t enough 158s to take over the Pompey to Cardiff route.

158s form close to half of the Portsmouth route anyway these days, with each of the 0923/1023/1123/1723/1823/1923 from Portsmouth being 4-158 or 5-158 (1123/1923) as of the May TT.

 

[Jrocks]

The rail communuty partnerships within the devon area fought long and hard to get some decent stock on the barnstaple branch, after years of having 1 car 153s and 2 car 142/3s. It is a very well used route, that being said, the Turbos fit the Paignton - Exmouth diagrams better due to loading speeds. Most people traveling on the Barny line thought the 158s were brand new trains. If they were taken away from us, I guarantee the usage of the line would drop.

 

[baza585]

So how does 3 x 3 car 158s on the Barney Branch translate to 4 or 5 car 158s on the Pompey to Cardiff route?

As has been said before there aren’t enough 158s to take over the Pompey to Cardiff route.

True but the 158s are suited to long distance services, not to stopping services. The Turbos are more suited to stop start services

I still don't understand the logic behind why as many 158s as available are not scheduled for Pompey Cardiff duties for which they are much more suitable than Turbos.

It's less important what runs to Barnstaple in all honesty.......

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I still don't understand the logic behind why as many 158s as available are not scheduled for Pompey Cardiff duties for which they are much more suitable than Turbos.

It's less important what runs to Barnstaple in all honesty.......

Because you can’t run 6 car 158s on that route and there’s no spare 2 car 158s to couple the 3 car 158s up you mention.

One of the Barnstaple workings has to be a 158 anyway as it runs through to Axminster and turbos are not cleared there (and there’s no funding for the gauge clearance work). So we really are splitting hairs over 2 x 3 car 158s.

 

[Flinn Reed]

So how does 3 x 3 car 158s on the Barney Branch translate to 4 or 5 car 158s on the Pompey to Cardiff route?

As has been said before there aren’t enough 158s to take over the Pompey to Cardiff route.

Would there be enough if the 158s were only used on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route, with Turbos used elsewhere?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would there be enough if the 158s were only used on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route, with Turbos used elsewhere?

Nope there aren’t and also there’s a fundamental problems that there are routes where 158s are used and turbos aren’t cleared:

2 diagrams in Cornwall alongside the HSTs
1 Barnstaple diagram which goes to Axminster

 

[Grecian 1998]

In fairness to GWR, they seem to use their stock fairly prudently.

As has been said elsewhere on the forum many times, 158s are kept away from the Bristol and Bath area on Cardiff-Portsmouth services at peak times because their end doors mean they take too long to load and unload. The services they are booked for mean they only pass through Bristol and Bath off-peak if all goes to plan. I don't care for 166s - although improving the seating and replacing the defective air con with the same air cooling as the 165s would work wonders - but at peak time it's a matter of getting people on and off quickly enough to keep to time, and the wide 1/3 - 2/3 doors are crucial. GWR simply don't have enough 158s to run 5 car services in any case. Gloucester - Weymouth services are likely the same.

IME most Exmouth - Paignton services are run by 2 x 150 or 1 x 166. There are 158s but they're normally doubled up with 150s. Exmouth - Paignton has a very high turnover of passengers all along the route so again wide doors are essential. When 158s on their own appear, they're normally poor timekeepers due to the dwell time at stations being increased while everyone gets on and off.

Castle HSTs are concentrated on the lines between Cardiff and Penzance where their top speed can be utilised north of Newton Abbot. I don't think they're cleared to work over electrified lines, particularly if they have long swing link bogies, so Weymouth and Portsmouth are out.

158s are best suited to limited stop services where most people are travelling end-to-end. GWR don't have many routes like that, but Exeter - Barnstaple is one - few people board or disembark between Exeter and Barnstaple. True they can't reach their design speed of 90mph, but they can't reach it anywhere south of Bath on Cardiff - Portsmouth services anyway (although 85mph is permitted most of the way between Salisbury and Southampton).

The only places Barnstaple services are guaranteed to stop anyway is Crediton and Eggesford - every other station is a halt. Most services seem to call at Umberleigh IME but every other station is regularly skipped.

AIUI GWR are under pressure to start retiring the Castle HSTs as soon as there's enough other DMU stock to do so - the Castles are very expensive to run. This may well mean that 158s take over their current workings and 165s/166s take over the Barnstaple branch.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Based on my own observations, 158s seem capable of keeping to time if operating vice 75mph Sprinters. On that basis there should be no deficit using them in places where they can't exploit their 90mph capability. The end doors could be an issue in the peaks around Exeter, but that aside I don't see what the issue is.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Based on my own observations, 158s seem capable of keeping to time if operating vice 75mph Sprinters. On that basis there should be no deficit using them in places where they can't exploit their 90mph capability. The end doors could be an issue in the peaks around Exeter, but that aside I don't see what the issue is.

The end doors (and thus inability to meet dwell times) is the key reason to keep them away from Exmouth and peak time Portsmouth workings.

158s do currently have a single booked working to Exmouth, however it is late evening and simply because at that time a Barnstaple service interworks through to Exmouth.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The end doors (and thus inability to meet dwell times) is the key reason to keep them away from Exmouth and peak time Portsmouth workings.

158s do currently have a single booked working to Exmouth, however it is late evening and simply because at that time a Barnstaple service interworks through to Exmouth.

Probably not much of a problem at that time of day. It's a while since I've been down that way but I remember getting a 158 from Digby into Central (which was still in TPE colours with a first-class section) and it didn't strike me as slow on that short hop. Likewise when a 158 subs for the usual 150 on Huddersfield to Sheffield there's no significant performance difference. The door layout only makes a difference if it's particularly busy.

 

[Snow1964]

The end doors (and thus inability to meet dwell times) is the key reason to keep them away from Exmouth and peak time Portsmouth workings.

In fairness to GWR, they seem to use their stock fairly prudently.


As has been said elsewhere on the forum many times, 158s are kept away from the Bristol and Bath area on Cardiff-Portsmouth services at peak times because their end doors mean they take too long to load and unload. The services they are booked for mean they only pass through Bristol and Bath off-peak if all goes to plan. I don't care for 166s - although improving the seating and replacing the defective air con with the same air cooling as the 165s would work wonders - but at peak time it's a matter of getting people on and off quickly enough to keep to time, and the wide 1/3 - 2/3 doors are crucial. GWR simply don't have enough 158s to run 5 car services in any case. Gloucester - Weymouth services are likely the same.

To some extent GWR avoiding using 158s at Bath and Bristol at peak times just moves the problem to Southampton and Salisbury as they arrive there during the peaks instead.

Because you can’t run 6 car 158s on that route and there’s no spare 2 car 158s to couple the 3 car 158s up you mention.

As for the 5car limit, the requirements to mix 2car and 3car units could have been (and still can be) solved quite easily by few platform extensions of 10-20m. (many stations can take 6car anyway). 2 weekends ago the line between Bath and Westbury was closed, so could easily have installed the foundations for short platform extensions at many of the remaining stations with shorter platforms (but they didn’t)

Knock on effects of the lack of 769s, I suggest.

Is there any plan to fix this, just seems to be becoming a permanent excuse, if they can’t get the 769s then need an alternative (not current idea of spread 165s & 166s thinly)

So in summary the problem comes from using 158s on Cardiff-Portsmouth as there is no plan to get something more suitable on the line, which would release the 158s

And if the 769s are a dead idea, then without releasing the 158s, there is nothing to replace Castle HSTs either.

 

[dk1]

I somehow remember reading that most of the 158s where being based at Exeter leaving the Turbo fleet to St.Phillips Marsh. Perhaps it’s operationally better to concentrate them on the Barnstaple/Exeter/Axminster* route along with those that work into Cornwall.

*Limited service now but planned to go hourly at some point in the future.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

As for the 5car limit, the requirements to mix 2car and 3car units could have been (and still can be) solved quite easily by few platform extensions of 10-20m. (many stations can take 6car anyway). 2 weekends ago the line between Bath and Westbury was closed, so could easily have installed the foundations for short platform extensions at many of the remaining stations with shorter platforms (but they didn’t)

They didn’t install platform extensions because there is no funding to do so. NR doesn’t just get on to do things it isn’t funded for.

Not all the required platform lengthening is that simple, Filton Abbey Wood for example.

 

[geoffk]

The rail communuty partnerships within the devon area fought long and hard to get some decent stock on the barnstaple branch, after years of having 1 car 153s and 2 car 142/3s. It is a very well used route, that being said, the Turbos fit the Paignton - Exmouth diagrams better due to loading speeds. Most people traveling on the Barny line thought the 158s were brand new trains. If they were taken away from us, I guarantee the usage of the line would drop.

158s are suitable for Barnstaple as the narrow end doors are more suited to the traffic patterns; most traffic is end-to-end with fair amount of travel to/from Crediton, the only intermediate place of any size (and all the other stations are request stops). Exmouth is normally a mix of 2x150 and 165/166 but we do get the occasional 158. The rail user group of which I'm a member would like more Turbos but releasing them depends on the introduction of 769s on the North Downs line and that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

 

[Envoy]

Many thanks everyone for your input thus far. It seems to me that GWR need a new fleet of trains to cover everything that does not go to London. Hopefully new stock would also be able to work on overhead wires and that electrification will be extended in the region.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Single 158766 appears to be working Exmouth Paignton today

 

[JonathanH]

It seems to me that GWR need a new fleet of trains to cover everything that does not go to London.

Where new = transferred in from elsewhere.

With the costs of the IEP fleet, the pennies need to be watched although a) the legacy units can't go on for ever, and b) there might be a case made for new trains if it is seen to effect a saving relative to using stock from elsewhere. New fleets come with a training cost that the DfT may not want to pay.

 

[The exile]

To some extent GWR avoiding using 158s at Bath and Bristol at peak times just moves the problem to Southampton and Salisbury as they arrive there during the peaks instead.

Is the passenger churn there comparable? I’m guessing the big problem is the peak hour churn at Bath ( large crowds off; large crowds on at a two platform station on a busy main line where Portsmouth bound trains have a London express snapping at their heels)

 

[BayPaul]

Many thanks everyone for your input thus far. It seems to me that GWR need a new fleet of trains to cover everything that does not go to London. Hopefully new stock would also be able to work on overhead wires and that electrification will be extended in the region.

I'd say the current fleet is pretty fit for purpose. The 150s need to be replaced fairly soon, hopefully the battery brach train will be successful and more will be ordered to replace them. As has been mentioned, the HSTs are very expensive, and will probably go soon, my guess is that a few more 158s will be found. Otherwise the trains are decent enough. It would be nice for a new bimode 444 type train to be introduced to work the Cardiff - Portsmouth (and probably Waterloo - Exeter) routes, but it seems unlikely!

 

[Snow1964]

I'd say the current fleet is pretty fit for purpose. The 150s need to be replaced fairly soon, hopefully the battery brach train will be successful and more will be ordered to replace them. As has been mentioned, the HSTs are very expensive, and will probably go soon, my guess is that a few more 158s will be found. Otherwise the trains are decent enough. It would be nice for a new bimode 444 type train to be introduced to work the Cardiff - Portsmouth (and probably Waterloo - Exeter) routes, but it seems unlikely!

Personally, I would be scoring the current fleet lower, nearer barely adequate, rather than pretty fit for its non 80x fleet.

But relying on someone else offloading 30-33 year old 158s and maybe taking some on, is a fairly poor strategy for next 2-4 years. There is a chance none come available, or even if they do, that someone else wants them more and outbids GWR.

Even if the 769s actually arrive (which seems more unlikely every month that goes by) they are still stuck with insufficient units to strengthen all the busy trains. 35 year old modified trains are never going to be ideal.

But I totaly agree, realistically a bi-mode 444 type (with dual voltage) is the only serious strategy that can last into the 2030s and beyond, every other suggestion is a bit of a short term sticking plaster approach, that might not even work in 3-5 years time.

 

[nw12398]

I see that 158’s are being used on the Exeter to Barnstaple route and on the Exmouth branch line (the latter being mainly 150’s). Now neither of these lines need 90mph trains and being as 3 coaches should suffice, why aren’t 165/6’s being used on these lines? Surely, the 158’s would be better employed on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route in 4 or 5 car formation being as they have a through corridor connection? The use of Turbos in multiple on this route does of course mean no through corridor connection. Of course, it could well be that the wider 165/6’s don’t ‘fit’ the Barnstaple branch line.

(Some services on the Cardiff > Portsmouth route are 158’s though most are 165/6’s).

r.e. Exmouth: In my experience 3 coaches is often insufficient for the Exmouth line although 158s aren't well suited for the route anyway; however it seems to take most of Exeter's 165/166 allocations anyway. It is only in the last few weeks/months that 158s seem to have become a more regular appearance.

As for Barnstaple: I've been on a 3 car 158 out of Exeter towards Barnstaple at peak evening which has been absolutely packed, although only only as far as Newton St Cyres so it may be a bit better after Crediton. The 158s are pretty well suited for the route, which sees most passengers travelling for > 1 hour and generally with a fairly limited number of stops. As the 158 slowly gets replaced, I can see the line being one of the last places to use them owing to their well-suitedness and the low priority of the line.

Fairly sure 166s have made it to Barny and Okehampton.

They're pretty common on the Barnstaple line. However, I know there's definitely been a test run but has a passenger service to Okehampton ever used a 166? I'm pretty sure it didn't happen before the timetable changed to hourly, at least.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Quite a few Okehamptons have been 2-165. Today, there are 2-158s on both Okehamptons!

 

[dmu fan]

Had 2 x class 165/1 to and from Weymouth yesterday.11am arrival and 1730 departure. So much revenue lost. Stations without ticket barriers passengers would have had a field day and free day out Was positioned in leading unit both ways.only saw guard at the request stops. A 4 carriage 158 more suitable.