GwR HSTs to be stood down

[brad465]

What a waste of money the Castle Class Upgrade was then..

There have been bigger wastes of money on upgrading/refurbishing rolling stock.

 

[fgwrich]

Is there not a disagreement at the moment about conductors working IETs?

There will be an awful lot of nameplates for sale too!

I still find it absolutely crazy that GWR has continued with its obsession of naming, and renaming everything. It might have been “money in last years budget” which needed to be used up, but was it really necessary to fork out 2x cast nameplates for every power car and Class 57?!

 

[Bikeman78]

Recessions traditionally see off older rolling stock, here is no exception. Just because money has previously been spent doesn’t mean further money will be forthcoming.

@Bald Rick has hinged before at the serious budget savings required on the railways from the next financial year.

Might as well give up on the 769s as well then. That will save a few quid.

 

[fgwrich]

There have been bigger wastes of money on upgrading/refurbishing rolling stock.

Yes… First Group and 442 spring to mind. Ah, First Group…

 

[JonathanH]

The only, and I mean from looking at these plans so far only, good thing which could come from the retirement of the HSTs could be the freeing up of a load of decent Grammer seats which could be used to make either the 158 or 16X fleet semi decent inside. But, given the opportunities to re-use those seats so far have been continually missed, I don’t hold out much hope.

Someone is going to have to bombard the GWR suggestion box with that idea. I suspect there is no chance of it happening.

Might as well give up on the 769s as well then. That will save a few quid.

Yes, not least given they are only concentrating on getting six of them to work, of the nineteen. Binning the project now will save any costs of staff training.

 

[DanNCL]

You say that, but fitting cheap (compared to the Chiltern plug ones) and fitting the even cheaper, crappy TrainFX system was hardly an upgrade. A number of GWR Mark 3s were already in GWR green since 2015-2016, and for those that were only fitted with the green interior in 2018/2019, they've still had around five years of use.

Virgin Trains East Coast began implementing "Plush tush" on the outgoing HSTs and IC225s only three years prior to the planned 2018 introduction of the Azumas - in fact, they hadn't even finished the MK4s until early 2017! Had the replacement programme followed schedule the refurbishment would have only lasted three years or so. A key difference here is that GWR did up the HSTs with plans for them to remain permanently. Their cost, their age, their safety review following a fatal collision under a different TOC, the recession and loss of passengers following the pandemic and other factors have caused the circumstances to change.

“Plush Tush” was nothing more than new seat covers and carpets, and PRM door tones for the Mark 4s. It won’t have cost anything remotely like what the sliding door conversions for the HSTs will have cost.

Yes… First Group and 442 spring to mind. Ah, First Group…

Just wait til they realise how many Mark 5 sets another of their TOCs have paid for to leave idle!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The only, and I mean from looking at these plans so far only, good thing which could come from the retirement of the HSTs could be the freeing up of a load of decent Grammer seats which could be used to make either the 158 or 16X fleet semi decent inside. But, given the opportunities to re-use those seats so far have been continually missed, I don’t hold out much hope.

I personally think the GWR 158s have very comfortable seats already, and while it's all down to subjective opinions and you may not share that view, GWR don't seem likely to bother spending money replacing one type of long-distance seat with another that would be considered the same quality from a neutral point of view.

If I were being really speculative I'd suggest Scotrail nabbed the carriages and lengthened their sets seeing as they seem keen to keep the bleeding things on until the mid 2030s, but I don't see it happening.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2022 ==

“Plush Tush” was nothing more than new seat covers and carpets, and PRM door tones for the Mark 4s. It won’t have cost anything remotely like what the sliding door conversions for the HSTs will have cost.

Circumstances change though, and unfortunate as it is, it is just how it goes. I'm sure no one was happy about the wasted refurbishment on the 442s either, but no one saw COVID (or the other factors) coming.

 

[DanNCL]

Circumstances change though, and unfortunate as it is, it is just how it goes. I'm sure no one was happy about the wasted refurbishment on the 442s either, but no one saw COVID (or the other factors) coming.

Both these short HSTs and the 442s were clearly a waste of money from the start. So are the 769s which for some inexplicable reason still haven’t been given up on.

There has been a lack of any strategy for managing rolling stock over the last 10 years and it’s starting to show. The excessive ordering of new EMUs in the second half of the last decade will play a large part in the wider picture of this fiasco even if it doesn’t directly influence the GWR situation.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Virgin Trains East Coast began implementing "Plush tush" on the outgoing HSTs and IC225s only three years prior to the planned 2018 introduction of the Azumas - in fact, they hadn't even finished the MK4s until early 2017!

I suspect LNER will have to be fighting to keep the 91s and mk4s.

There’s no indication that budget issues on GWR are any more severe than anywhere else. So one would expect more cuts elsewhere.

 

[DanNCL]

I suspect LNER will have to be fighting to keep the 91s and mk4s.

There’s no indication that budget issues on GWR are any more severe than anywhere else. So one would expect more cuts elsewhere.

LNER is the one TOC that the DFT daren’t interfere with the rolling stock plan for. It makes them far too much money for them to risk it, even the DFT aren’t mad enough to try it.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I suspect LNER will have to be fighting to keep the 91s and mk4s.

If this pattern continues, I would indeed expect them to be binned off with 5 car Azumas booked for off-peak Leeds services. But - seeing as the discussion of replacement new stock for them was happening not to long ago, would this idea not have been squashed completely by now if the DfT wanted LNER to have the IEP-procured Azumas only?

LNER is the one TOC that the DFT daren’t interfere with the rolling stock plan for. It makes them far too much money for them to risk it, even the DFT aren’t mad enough to try it.

And seeing as they coped without them during their overhaul last year, I'm certain the DfT would have announced their axing by now if it was coming.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

LNER is the one TOC that the DFT daren’t interfere with the rolling stock plan for. It makes them far too much money for them to risk it, even the DFT aren’t mad enough to try it.

Pretty sure LNER are going through the annual business plan process at the moment to look at efficiencies, same as any other TOC. That is why the ECML timetable recast has been paused isn’t it? Who knows but at the moment nothing in the railway is safe it seems.

 

[jamiearmley]

LNER would do better to bin off Harrogate, Bradford and Skipton.

The costs are incredible, in terms of crew, units and infrastructure, and the only benefit Is revenue abstraction from Northern by LNER.

The upcoming investment in forster Square to allow even more LNER services is an enormous, costly, vanity project.

They are also the first "extensions" to be cancelled in any disruption.

Focus on the core route, and let the locals run the branches

Could result in lower costs for LNER and less subsidy required for Northern, along with better reliability, less congestion, easier platforming at Leeds, better clock face timetable for local services, etc.

Much as I hate the Azumas, they could do with lengthening them all to 10 car, and palming the extras off to another operator.

Only wishful thinking though.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Much as I hate the Azumas, they could do with lengthening them all to 10 car, and palming the extras off to another operator.

Only wishful thinking though.

Well, in these circumstances it seems that GWR would benefit from that.

 

[DanNCL]

Trust me LNER are going through the annual business plan process at the moment to look at efficiencies. That is why the ECML timetable recast has been paused. Who knows but at the moment nothing in the railway is safe.

The Mark 4s are safe for at least the next two years, it’s cheaper to keep them than it is to end the lease early. After that they’re at risk, but we’re virtually guaranteed a new government by then so who knows what’ll happen.

The budgetary constraints are just one of many reasons the ECML timetable recast has been paused.

With it being off topic I won’t discuss this any further on this thread.

Well, in these circumstances it seems that GWR would benefit from that.

Indeed!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The Mark 4s are safe for at least the next two years, it’s cheaper to keep them than it is to end the lease early. After that they’re at risk, but we’re virtually guaranteed a new government by then so who knows what’ll happen.

I never said anything about removing the mk4s from lease, I said about standing them down as per the GWR HSTs. That’s what saves the money not paying the ongoing mileage based maintenance.

GWR HSTs aren’t going off lease early as that means termination payments they are just ceasing to be used but held in reserve.

 

[DanNCL]

I never said anything about removing the mk4s from lease, I said about standing them down as per the GWR HSTs. That’s what saves the money not paying the ongoing mileage based maintenance.

GWR HSTs aren’t going off lease early as that means termination payments they are just ceasing to be used but held in reserve.

The majority of the Castle Sets are owned directly by First Group aren’t they? So aren’t under traditional leasing arrangements and are much easier to get rid of than most fleets.

LNER tried holding the Mark 4 fleet in reserve. It didn’t end quite how they or the DFT hoped it would!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The majority of the Castle Sets are owned directly by First Group aren’t they? So aren’t under traditional leasing arrangements and are much easier to get rid of than most fleets.

LNER tried holding the Mark 4 fleet in reserve. It didn’t end quite how they or the DFT hoped it would!

I can’t remember the exact split but a small number are GWR owned, and the others are about 50:50 I think from ROSCO or First. If anyone has a platform 5 book that’ll say who owns what. I do know it’s a mixed bag!

I guess the point I was making is whilst getting a fleet off lease saves the most about of money, not using a fleet still saves money.

 

[JonathanH]

The point made elsewhere is that there simply isn't the money to pay for overhaul of the engines as they reach the point this becomes required, hence no way to keep them in service, regardless of the ongoing lease.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The point made elsewhere is that there simply isn't the money to pay for overhaul of the engines as they reach the point this becomes required, hence no way to keep them in service, regardless of the ongoing lease.

Yes, I mean the oldest will be forty-eight year old trains, for goodness' sake. Forty-eight! I'm a fully grown legal adult, and they're older than my mother.

 

[43096]

I can’t remember the exact split but a small number are GWR owned, and the others are about 50:50 I think from ROSCO or First. If anyone has a platform 5 book that’ll say who owns what. I do know it’s a mixed bag!

Power car ownership of the green fleet is 19 Angel, 12 First Rail Holdings and 4 GWR.

 

[brad465]

Presumably more power cars currently in storage will be destined for scrap based on this news, both to make space for these sets being withdrawn and the fact they're being withdrawn only further proves the ones in storage have no future on the railway.

 

[RPI]

Cornwall Council won't be happy if the half hourly Cornish mainline service goes! What's the betting they have to stump up some more money to keep it.

 

[mike57]

Will the Castle units be of any further use to anyone else? Otherwise no doubt they will be scrapped. Yes, the HSTs are iconic units, but as others have said they are all well over 40 years old, but a bit like 'Triggers broom'. They have been part of my rail experiences since introduction, and unlike some units I will miss them, even today they ride better and are more comfortable than a lot of units I travel on, but everything reaches the end of its useful life and has to be replaced, and that time has come for HSTs.

From a cost viewpoint I imagine keeping a 40yo unit in front line service is going to cost more than more modern stock.

The changes in the SW sound like the pattern of things to come, with cost savings taking priority over maintaining service level.

 

[Snow1964]

@Bald Rick has hinged before at the serious budget savings required on the railways from the next financial year.

That is correct, but it is of ten misinterpreted as only cost savings, it is actually overall cost to HM Treasury (via DfT).

The subtle difference that some miss, is you can actually increase services, providing the extra revenue exceeds costs. Having DfT revenue support does muddy the water a bit, but if your plans mean need less bailout then that is not normally refused.

So it is actually about not moving a carriage full of fresh air, or as is often colloquially phrased, about bums on seats. So moves like changing from a half full 4car HST or 5car IET to a 9car IET in Cornwall can either be half the service to fill the seats, or introduce lots of ticket offers for quiet part of the route to fill the seats on the quiet sections (because you need the extra seats on a different part of the route, so can’t shorten the train)

My biggest fear is over Cardiff-Portsmouth being reduced to 3car, as might need to run lots of relief services at busy times due to overcrowding so is probably going to be unworkable.

 

[irish_rail]

Exactly, meaning Plymouth - Penzance receive 9 carriage trains instead of 5 carriage trains (that were 10 before Plymouth), which is an increase of four 26m carriages. That offsets the loss of another train which has four 23m carriages - and is often a 2/3 carriage 158 also.

Most trains are already 9 or 10 car on this route . Presently only a couple of trains a day split at Plymouth after common sense won the day there.

 

[Iskra]

Yes, I mean the oldest will be forty-eight year old trains, for goodness' sake. Forty-eight! I'm a fully grown legal adult, and they're older than my mother.

Yes, but the engines aren’t original, so your theatrics are hardly relevant.

 

[fgwrich]

Yes, but the engines aren’t original, so your theatrics are hardly relevant.

Engines, Electronics etc. But it is fashionable to some to jump up and down about the build age of the stock than the more modern things that keep them going. If the Mk3s had the rubbish Girling WSP for example, I’d be jumping up and down, but they don’t, the have the more modern (but admittedly not upgraded!) Westinghouse / Knor Bremse kit.

 

[RPI]

Thinking about it, I would assume this would eliminate the plans (which already started coming to fruition with the S.I. Bay Line closing for the works) to run five carriage trains to St. Ives, as spare stock will be needed on the mainline now. I wouldn't be surprised to see Okehampton reduced to two-hourly either, not that that would necessarily be the end of the world. That pointless daily Axminster train can always go back to SWR anyway, who can't be bothered to run 2tph north of London and have dramatically reduced Yeovil extensions.

The Axminster runs anyway to retain route knowledge which kept dwindling, so it may as well carry passengers and return a tiny bit of revenue to GWR, it also helps GWR drivers retain knowledge of braking points etc for the small stations which comes in handy for diversions.

As an aside, it came in very handy last night when SWR decided to abandon anything west of Axminster and couldn't source road transport, despite three units being trapped at Exeter.

GWR ran 2L92 to Honiton then a 2Z90 additional Honiton to Exeter calling all stations (except St James Park), much to the relief of some rather cold and wet people at Honiton!

 

[JonathanH]

Most trains are already 9 or 10 car on this route . Presently only a couple of trains a day split at Plymouth after common sense won the day there.

As 'Clarence Yard' wrote extensively when indicating why the 5-car approach was taken, the DfT view was 5-car London trains and a half hourly service in Cornwall or 9-car London trains and an hourly service. So maybe a hollow victory if the frequency of trains in Cornwall is now cut back.