simonmpoulton
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 193
Cant say i've personally noticed any difference between the engine noise on them having ridden on them regularly since the mid 2000's until 2020.
If IET's ran Cardiff - Exeter and 175's Exeter - Penzance it wouldn't be so bad.So many people west of Exeter use the Cardiff service to go to Bristol. Cutting it at Exeter would be bad. As mentioned beforehand the Crosscountry service would suffer.
Yeah Cardiff-Penzance has been a massive success for GWR. Connectivity has increased so much between many communities. There's a massive market from Devon and Cornwall to Bristol.
People don't like changing trains if they have settled in their seats. It's not a metro service over that distance.If IET's ran Cardiff - Exeter and 175's Exeter - Penzance it wouldn't be so bad.
Isn't this perhaps only for an initial period of maybe 12 months whilst drivers are trained for the 175s and then many services WILL run Cardiff to Penzance?People don't like changing trains if they have settled in their seats. It's not a metro service over that distance.
Not exactly the way to encourage rail travel, more a way to encourage them to permanently change mode.Isn't this perhaps only for an initial period of maybe 12 months whilst drivers are trained for the 175s and then many services WILL run Cardiff to Penzance?
They were built 99-01 so at most they’re 25 years old. 158’s we’re built 89-91 so at most are 35 years old.The Class 175 units are now three years older since the date this particular thread was opened. Realistically, what remaining life cycle can be expected of them?
Is it not the case that the Class 175 units were intended to be a type of long-distance DMU, whereas the Class 150 units were more of "workhorse" units.They were built 99-01 so at most they’re 25 years old. 158’s we’re built 89-91 so at most are 35 years old.
150’s started construction in 84 so are 40 years old.
If it was needed the 175’s could probably do another 15 years, they seem well built units from what I have had to do with them (which Is not a huge amount in truth) and what those who have had a lot to do with them tell me.
But more likely, they will be place holder units to help with capacity until project Churchwood can produce a replacement which should replace the 150’s 158’s 165’s 166’s and 175’s. Which is essentially everything not sleeper, IET or 387’s.
That is slightly overstating it.Not exactly the way to encourage rail travel, more a way to encourage them to permanently change mode.
Could you imagine if LNER made everyone travelling from London to Edinburgh change change trains mid journey, not exactly a great idea, so why it is thought acceptable between Cornwall and Somerset/Wales even for a year or two.
Sometimes I think passengers are being inconvenienced to simplify some operators shortcomings
Indeed - after all there are countless flows which require a change of trains as it is a physical impossibility to provide through services from everywhere to everywhere else. It is of course harder when a through service that previously existed no longer does so (particularly for shorter distance regular travellers, but I'm sure that the good burghers of Newport and Cardiff are just as capable of changing trains if they wish to reach Plymouth (or wherever is on the other side of the putative split) as their counterparts in Bath or Swindon currently are.That is slightly overstating it.
We are talking about services with 5 carriages at most, services which were recently 4 carriage HSTs. The split is not ideal, but it is no worse than has happened with South Wales to Manchester now that there are Cardiff splits.
Passengers across Exeter from Bristol still have the CrossCountry offerings.
I do not know how big the market from Cardiff and Newport is, but I doubt it is that large.
Releasing IETs will allow the Cardiff and Newport passengers to be more sure of 10-car trains to London (and Bristol Parkway) which has been a big casualty of the stretching of the IET fleet to operate routes like Cardiff to Penzance.
Getting a better service is definitely worth it.
Yes 175’s were designed with long distance in mind (as were 158’s) and 150’s were designed with shorter stop start routes in mind but I don’t think that really changes longevity.Is it not the case that the Class 175 units were intended to be a type of long-distance DMU, whereas the Class 150 units were more of "workhorse" units.
I could be talking a load of rubbish here, but wasn't there something about a special braking system (hydrostatic brake?) which required the engine to rev up signficantly (or itself sounded like a diesel/petrol engine at high revs) which has since been disabled?Do the 175s have the same engines, exhausts & transmission now that they had when new, and do they sound the same? I've seen some old videos in the FNW days and they seemed to sound a little different & louder then, but I guess this might be the recording quality.
The Class 175 units are now three years older since the date this particular thread was opened. Realistically, what remaining life cycle can be expected of them?
Unless they've suffered from their time in storage, their 10 year advantage over the 158s is very much apparent. They are much more modern units that should have plenty of time left in them. Most TfW traincrew miss working them, and GWR should hopefully enjoy them.They were built 99-01 so at most they’re 25 years old. 158’s we’re built 89-91 so at most are 35 years old.
150’s started construction in 84 so are 40 years old.
If it was needed the 175’s could probably do another 15 years, they seem well built units from what I have had to do with them (which Is not a huge amount in truth) and what those who have had a lot to do with them tell me.
But more likely, they will be place holder units to help with capacity until project Churchwood can produce a replacement which should replace the 150’s 158’s 165’s 166’s and 175’s. Which is essentially everything not sleeper, IET or 387’s.
No, you're correct - that system was isolated years ago and they've been running purely on disk brakes ever since but as built they used a hydrostatic brake. From talking to colleagues, they had phenomenal stopping power but it didn't help reliability much. Even on disc brakes alone though they'll still stop better than GWR's existing units.I could be talking a load of rubbish here, but wasn't there something about a special braking system (hydrostatic brake?) which required the engine to rev up signficantly (or itself sounded like a diesel/petrol engine at high revs) which has since been disabled?
Are they worse than Class 180?Compared to other long-distance DMU, would it be correct to say that the Class 175 units have been more subject to fires?
The Class 175 fire problems spanned a numbers of years:-Are they worse than Class 180?
You said 'compared to any other long distance DMU'.We are discussing Class 175 units on this thread. Perhaps you could address that query concerning the Class 180 units on a thread specific to them if one exists or open up a new thread.
Is it not the case that at one time, the entire Class 175 fleet were withdrawn from service?
I did withdraw that part of my posting and replaced it with a time schedule of Class 175 fires.You said 'compared to any other long distance DMU'.
I asked how 175s compared to the 180s, which is another long distance DMU.
I must say, I’m really not sure what your point is? Do you think GWR shouldn’t have them?I did withdraw that part of my posting and replaced it with a time schedule of Class 175 fires.
Why cannot GWR have brand new modern state-of-the-art units, rather than those of another era?I must say, I’m really not sure what your point is? Do you think GWR shouldn’t have them?
For a start, these will be available to enter service in a matter of months rather than years.Why cannot GWR have brand new modern state-of-the-art units, rather than those of another era?
If GWR have always been aware of the need, why were not matters put in hand then?For a start, these will be available to enter service in a matter of months rather than years.
They likely will eventually, since this is precisely what ‘Project Churchward’ aims to achieve. New stock takes a number of years to procure and GWR are in dire need of stock sooner rather than later. The GWR rolling stock situation has suffered in recent years due to different factors: withdrawal of 769s which prevented wholesale cascade of the Turbo fleet westwards; aging Sprinter and Turbo fleets requiring more maintenance and awaiting parts for longer periods; IETs covering stopping services where ideally they wouldn’t be.Why cannot GWR have brand new modern state-of-the-art units, rather than those of another era?
To a large extent I imagine money is a driving factor; one that GWR are not in a position to dictate, but instead resides with the Treasury.If GWR have always been aware of the need, why were not matters put in hand then?
As has been said. I know that you’re aware of how long it can take for new trains to be ordered, built and then brought into service.Why cannot GWR have brand new modern state-of-the-art units, rather than those of another era?
A fair question but one that does not resolve anything right now. The 175’s do though.If GWR have always been aware of the need, why were not matters put in hand then?
Matters quite likely were put in hand by GWR. They can put as many matters in hand as they like but until the Treasury says “ok, if you really must” (it’s never going to get more positive than that) nothing will happen.If GWR have always been aware of the need, why were not matters put in hand then?
Because there is a ticking clock in terms of the end of the remaining HST fleet around engine hours and bogie mileage.Why cannot GWR have brand new modern state-of-the-art units, rather than those of another era?
Well there's a smoking gun for the fleet's arrival in the absence of an official statement!May be of interest….
![]()
DMU Fleet Engineer (Class 175) - Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom
Who are we? GWR is the proud custodian of Brunel's railway - one of the most prestigious networks in the world. We have some of the newest trains in the country and exciting plans to extend our services. With more than one hundred million passenger journeys each year, we carry people to over...careers.firstgroup.co.uk
Today's railways are very tightly controlled by the government in a way I imagine would not be recognisable to the pre-nationalisation Big Four companies.In the days of yore, were companies such as the LNWR, GWR, etc. beholden upon the Treasury when new locomotive fleets were thought to be a need?