Class 175 to GWR

[jamieh27]

If 150s are to remain on most of the branches, that seems an excessive number of units. Splitting Cardiff to Penzance is a backward step. What will run from Cardiff to Taunton?

Yes I think the 20 150s will be on branch lines. I assume it will be a 165/166 or a 158 from Cardiff to Exeter.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

What will run from Cardiff to Taunton?

Cardiff to Exeter is planned to remain as IETs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2024 ==

there simply isn't enough trains being released to get every Portsmouth-Cardiff train to 4 or 5 car 158 for next 6 - 8 years.

There aren’t enough 158s to achieve that anyway at GWR.

The plan for the 175s shows the end position to have all 8 Portsmouth circuits as double formations, a mix of 4 and 5 car 158s and 5 car 16x.

 

[Topological]

Cardiff to Exeter is planned to remain as IETs.

Moving to hourly? Or only in hours that are currently Cardiff to Penzance?

This does seem to be a change of plan to the initially talked about staggered training plan. This now sounds like a permanent split of Cardiff to South West trains.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

and there are regularly 5-7 5car IETs covering local trains

Only around half the IETs are to be replaced on local services, they will remain on Cardiff - Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2024 ==

This now sounds like a permanent split of Cardiff to South West trains.

This is happening in the May 25 timetable change.

 

[Topological]

Only around half the IETs are to be replaced on local services, they will remain on Cardiff - Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2024 ==



This is happening in the May 25 timetable change.

So shortforms on the South Wales to Paddington will continue?

Of course everyone will be hoping for better IET availability percentages to help a bit too.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

So shortforms on the South Wales to Paddington will continue?

There’s still a good number of IETs being released by the 175 introduction so not sure why you have that view.

The plan I understand is to try and make the whole service more resilient, on both London and Regional services.

 

[brad465]

I assume it will be a 165/166 or a 158 from Cardiff to Exeter.

These units already do multiple late night services between Bristol and Exeter each way, that act as both late services for night entertainment passengers and depot moves.

Only around half the IETs are to be replaced on local services, they will remain on Cardiff - Exeter.

If IETs are to remain somewhere this is the most logical bit: this route section covers almost all the 95-110mph sections on the Cardiff-Penzance service, plus the IETs can use OHLE on the South Wales mainline section.

 

[Topological]

There’s still a good number of IETs being released by the 175 introduction so not sure why you have that view.

The plan I understand is to try and make the whole service more resilient, on both London and Regional services.

That is good news

As a layperson, it would feel like there cannot be that many saved by cutting Exeter to Penzance. I assume there are other local uses being saved too? I did see an IET on a Worcester once but is that a regular thing? Is there much saved from the resilience of other services not needing IETs?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That is good news

As a layperson, it would feel like there cannot be that many saved by cutting Exeter to Penzance. I assume there are other local uses being saved too? I did see an IET on a Worcester once but is that a regular thing? Is there much saved from the resilience of other services not needing IETs?

Cardiff to Exeter is around 2.5 hours, Exeter to Penzance is similar.

The split is roughly in the middle meaning roughly half the number of IETs will be needed for this service.

 

[Topological]

Cardiff to Exeter is around 2.5 hours, Exeter to Penzance is similar.

The split is roughly in the middle meaning roughly half the number of IETs will be needed for this service.

In operations terms what does that mean?

It is a 2-hourly service so with 5 hours of travel does that mean 3 IETs saved (Equivalent of 1 train spending 5 hours traveling and 30 minutes at each end)?

It feels like a lot more saving is needed to get the number of 5-cars on the mainline up to 10-car.

(My apologies if some of these things are obvious, but having all the Cardiff to South West (Taunton or Penzance) replaced would free a lot more IETs)

 

[Express380]

In operations terms what does that mean?

It is a 2-hourly service so with 5 hours of travel does that mean 3 IETs saved (Equivalent of 1 train spending 5 hours traveling and 30 minutes at each end)?

It feels like a lot more saving is needed to get the number of 5-cars on the mainline up to 10-car.

(My apologies if some of these things are obvious, but having all the Cardiff to South West (Taunton or Penzance) replaced would free a lot more IETs)

You also have some workings between Penzance and Plymouth and the Gloucester service in addition to the previously mentioned Bristol to Worcester services so hopefully should have a sizeable impact.

 

[JonathanH]

It feels like a lot more saving is needed to get the number of 5-cars on the mainline up to 10-car.

Or just Hitachi delivering on reliability? Are there actually diagrammed 5-car services arising from the fleet size or is it all because there aren't enough spares? What level of diagrammed utilisation would result in enough spares that no 10-car service ever runs with a single 5-car unit?

No doubt the same issue will apply with 175s if spares aren't diagrammed.

 

[Topological]

Or just Hitachi delivering on reliability? Are there actually diagrammed 5-car services arising from the fleet size or is it all because there aren't enough spares? What level of diagrammed utilisation would result in enough spares that no 10-car service ever runs with a single 5-car unit?

No doubt the same issue will apply with 175s if spares aren't diagrammed.

Looks like only two diagrams running as 5-car today (09:20, 13:20, 16:20 and 20:20 from Cardiff towards Paddington).

Saturdays are only hourly though. It is the Monday to Friday patterns that are more relevant.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Or just Hitachi delivering on reliability? Are there actually diagrammed 5-car services arising from the fleet size or is it all because there aren't enough spares? What level of diagrammed utilisation would result in enough spares that no 10-car service ever runs with a single 5-car unit?

No doubt the same issue will apply with 175s if spares aren't diagrammed.

GWR can diagram 32 x 800 and 19 x 802 5 car sets a day, all traffic diagrams. If GWR diagrammed any more of those as spares, that would increase the number of 5 vs 10. The problem with having traffic spares on GWR is where do you put them? Shortages can happen at any depot overnight.

And then there is the problem that the 800 and 802 fleet do not operate together in passenger service. So where do you place the different class spares?

With the 175 fleet and a more restricted operating area, the problem of where you put the traffic spares is much reduced. GWR will need them with that fleet, as well as a low overall daily availability target, at least initially.

 

[dciuk]

And then there is the problem that the 800 and 802 fleet do not operate together in passenger service

I thought they used to be able to operate together and then a software change stopped that. Could another software update not be developed to enable them to work together again?

 

[Snow1964]

With the 175 fleet and a more restricted operating area, the problem of where you put the traffic spares is much reduced. GWR will need them with that fleet, as well as a low overall daily availability target, at least initially.

Although you refer to 175s as a fleet, it is really 2 different size fleets (11 x 2car and bigger fleet of 16 x 3car), and as far as I'm aware can't couple them in service to 150 or 16x.

So although they might be concentrated in a small geographic area, the simple fact that some services use single units and others two units, means having so many different types and lengths creates a different problem, as having the ideal traffic spare in right place and not stabled in wrong location is going to be difficult.

As an example of the potential problems, it is currently not uncommon for Portsmouth-Cardiff trains to be reduced to 2cars because Fratton only has a serviceable 2car 158 and a 16x and they can't be coupled. Getting a spare from Bristol is over 2 hours so doesn't happen. If outstations like Fratton suffer this problem, then I can easily see it happening at Exeter and Penzance too.

 

[43096]

Although you refer to 175s as a fleet, it is really 2 different size fleets (11 x 2car and bigger fleet of 16 x 3car), and as far as I'm aware can't couple them in service to 150 or 16x.

It's physically impossible. Class 15x and 16x have BSI couplers, 175s have Scharfenburg/Dellner couplers.

 

[Sporty60]

It's really enlightening for an ordinary customer like myself to hear facts about strengthening the fleet from well informed posters on the forum.
So thank you all.
Within twelve months it seems that service cancellations/short forms should have reduced significantly.
As GWR hold the details of many customers should they perhaps consider a mail shot occasionally perhaps apologising for poor customer experience where applicable, but reassuring them that reinforcements are coming down the line.
As GWR probably can target those emails based on customers travel patterns it would be good PR and perhaps make customers feel better knowing help is arriving rather than someone vowing to never travel by train ever again.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Although you refer to 175s as a fleet, it is really 2 different size fleets (11 x 2car and bigger fleet of 16 x 3car), and as far as I'm aware can't couple them in service to 150 or 16x.

So although they might be concentrated in a small geographic area, the simple fact that some services use single units and others two units, means having so many different types and lengths creates a different problem, as having the ideal traffic spare in right place and not stabled in wrong location is going to be difficult.

As an example of the potential problems, it is currently not uncommon for Portsmouth-Cardiff trains to be reduced to 2cars because Fratton only has a serviceable 2car 158 and a 16x and they can't be coupled. Getting a spare from Bristol is over 2 hours so doesn't happen. If outstations like Fratton suffer this problem, then I can easily see it happening at Exeter and Penzance too.

Ultimately this is why they were offloaded from TFW.

TFW could have kept them as they’re still fairly modern, well liked, comfortable and had become rather reliable too. But with a brand new fleet being ordered, the operationally flexibility of having virtually all class 197’s for their mainline operations (plus a few MK4 sets) simplifies things when issues crop up (which they always will).

GWR have a replacement plan, but it’s too far away and getting the 175’s is stop gap that is less than ideal but they will do the best that they can with what they have.

Many would argue they’d be better off with TFW’s 158’s but they’re an unknown amount of time away.

 

[D365]

Many would argue they’d be better off with TFW’s 158’s but they’re an unknown amount of time away.

Indeed. There’s the added complexity of getting the CAF ETCS certified on the Cambrian lines before the TfW 158s can be displaced. Plus Angel seems intent on removing ETCS from before re-leasing the 158s.

 

[MasterPhillips]

This is happening in the May 25 timetable change.

This is disappointing news. The Through services are very popular from what I hear and also help to relieve the inadequate CrossCountry services.

Is this simply based on not wanting to have 175s travel past Exeter and therefore reduce crew training etc?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is this simply based on not wanting to have 175s travel past Exeter and therefore reduce crew training etc?

It is simply based that requirements on the day for a service to operate include an actual train and traincrew, large amounts of crew training removes crew from running front line services, as forum members have commented on the GWR Cancellations thread at times this can be challenging.

There is no point GWR sorting out the trains availability issue if the amount of training needed then means trains are cancelled due to no crew. The split service reduces training to manageable levels.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2024 ==

This is disappointing news. The Through services are very popular from what I hear and also help to relieve the inadequate CrossCountry services.

Which is why the service is being split at Exeter, not the more historical Taunton location so these services still provide relief to XC services between Exeter and Bristol.

 

[Class172]

Which is why the service is being split at Exeter, not the more historical Taunton location so these services still provide relief to XC services between Exeter and Bristol.

This is a sensible choice in my opinion, since Exeter is a much greater source of interchanging traffic than Taunton was.

Obviously there are constrains with the timetabling, but it would be good if the two halves of the service had a reasonable connection with each other, so they can still be used as a pseudo-direct service for passengers who previously travel either side of the city.

I did wonder briefly if these changes would result in St Davids P2 getting any more use, but if the Exeter-Cardiff portion is to remain as IETs, I’m not sure they fit in the platform so I presume P6 will be the platform of choice.

 

[800301]

I thought they used to be able to operate together and then a software change stopped that. Could another software update not be developed to enable them to work together again?

They can only operate together ECS, if the 802 is the leading unit there aren’t any issues but if the 800 is the leading unit you can’t see any CCTV from the 802 unit, so in theory they could operate in one direction providing the 802 is the leading unit but I can’t see that happening

Apparently there are plans in the works to sort this issue but these trains are over 5/6 years old now and they still haven’t got them right so it doesn’t seem urgent to me

 

[Western 52]

It would be more convenient for many passengers if the Cardiff services ran to Exeter Central, but capacity issues probably.

 

[Anonymous10]

Yes that is the eventual plan that the 158s will be dedicated for that route, although there aren’t quite enough as has been discussed before so a limited number of turbo workings will need to remain too.

Hopefully the turbos can be used at rush hour to eat up the crowds of commuters.

 

[DelW]

Ultimately this is why they were offloaded from TFW.

TFW could have kept them as they’re still fairly modern, well liked, comfortable and had become rather reliable too. But with a brand new fleet being ordered, the operationally flexibility of having virtually all class 197’s for their mainline operations (plus a few MK4 sets) simplifies things when issues crop up (which they always will).

I'm still puzzled why they were withdrawn so early from TfW. Recent press articles as quoted above (post 261) state that

Built between 1999 and 2001 and refurbished by their manufacturer from 2019 to 2021, the Angel Trains owned fleet had most recently been leased by Transport for Wales Rail but were withdrawn last year by TFW following the introduction of new Caf-built Class 197 DMUS.

(my bold)
But as is well known now, TfW had nowhere near enough 197s and mk4s ready to replace them, and had to pull wholly unsuitable 150s and 153s off the Valleys services to maintain some sort of provision on the Marches line.

At the time there was speculation that the 175s were needed elsewhere, but as they've been in storage ever since, why on earth were they taken off the Marches so long before their replacements were ready in adequate numbers?

 

[simonmpoulton]

I think it's all to do with the decision to bin chester depot off to CAF and put all the new 197's there. As such there was just no space to continue maintenance of the 175's at Chester. That's without even getting into the poor job CAF did with regards to 175 maintenance and currently even 197 maintenance.

 

[DelW]

I think it's all to do with the decision to bin chester depot off to CAF and put all the new 197's there. As such there was just no space to continue maintenance of the 175's at Chester. That's without even getting into the poor job CAF did with regards to 175 maintenance and currently even 197 maintenance.

Yes, I can see the logic for that, even if it was very unfortunate in the short term. I suppose there would always have been an awkward changeover period while the depot was switching from one fleet to the other.

 

[Starmill]

I'm still puzzled why they were withdrawn so early from TfW. Recent press articles as quoted above (post 261) state that

(my bold)
But as is well known now, TfW had nowhere near enough 197s and mk4s ready to replace them, and had to pull wholly unsuitable 150s and 153s off the Valleys services to maintain some sort of provision on the Marches line.

At the time there was speculation that the 175s were needed elsewhere, but as they've been in storage ever since, why on earth were they taken off the Marches so long before their replacements were ready in adequate numbers?

Fundamentally, your stakeholders (ministers and other politicians, staff unions, the ORR, the general public) all begin getting iffy with you once your trains have, er, caught fire several times in public service (or on their way in or out of public service, with staff onboard)! Even if the engine did not actually catch fire, setting off the alarm more than once or twice is enough to cause awkward questions to be asked.

The fleet was maintained to good availability (or at least tolerable availability) and (nearly) fire-free by ATW but of course the regime was changed soon after the franchise start date. By the time the news got wind of it, it was already too late. TfW promised not to return the trains to service without a thorough clean of the engine bay. Perhaps if they'd done that sooner things would have been different. Plainly by the time that commitment was given, TfW Rail had already squandered a lot of the trust their staff and the general public put in them to run trains that don't catch fire. Luckily their chosen course seems to have repaired most of the damaged trust by now.

The up side to all of this is, of course, that GWR are forewarned of the various problems, and can take the experience TfW had into account with their maintenance cycle.