Class 175 to GWR

[HamworthyGoods]

Per

Seeing as the DfT have had a sudden outbreak of generosity, perhaps GWR will be permitted to acquire a TFW 150 or two when the decent ones start coming off lease!

The ROSCO is not making any of the ex TfW 150s available for further leases.

You can’t buy what the shop won’t sell…

 

[Towers]

The ROSCO is not making any of the ex TfW 150s available for further leases.

You can’t buy what the shop won’t sell…

Ah. Yes that would rather put paid to the idea then! Off topic here, but are all the TfW 150s expected to be due overhaul by the time withdrawal comes, precluding any sort of further lease?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Ah. Yes that would rather put paid to the idea then! Off topic here, but are all the TfW 150s expected to be due overhaul by the time withdrawal comes, precluding any sort of further lease?

Regardless of overhauls no new leases are being taken on 150s.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Ah. Yes that would rather put paid to the idea then! Off topic here, but are all the TfW 150s expected to be due overhaul by the time withdrawal comes, precluding any sort of further lease?

It’s very likely that every single one will meet its C6 overhaul mileage forcing its withdrawal, which will probably be before TFW are ready for it to leave.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

No. This is 100 percent happening. Driver training is being sorted as we speak and likely to start within the next month or two.

Latest from the company is that they are still in discussions about them.

 

[Snow1964]

Latest from the company is that they are still in discussions about them.

If I have done my calculations correctly, then even if GWR get all the 175s, by end of 2025 the average age of the fleet will be more than current 15 years. Increased to about average of 15.5 years.
So even as stopgap, by age fleet will be worse than now (summer 2024), the only upside is about net 4% in more seats.

Although at first glance, some might think of GWR fleet as relatively young, it's only the IETs that are youngish. Even the 387s will be 10 years old by late 2025

I am assuming 4 sets of 4 coaches on Castle HSTs will be leaving (I know there are more, but basing it on what is used in service). But will still have lots of old trains : the 40+ year old night Riveria fleet, the 150s (38-39 years old next year), the 158s and 165s (about 34-35 years old in 2025), even youngest 166 will be 33 years old.

Of course if 175s arrive, and nothing else changes by 2028 the average age of fleet will grow to 18-19 years

 

[The exile]

If I have done my calculations correctly, then even if GWR get all the 175s, by end of 2025 the average age of the fleet will be more than current 15 years. Increased to about average of 15.5 years.
So even as stopgap, by age fleet will be worse than now (summer 2024), the only upside is about net 4% in more seats.

Although at first glance, some might think of GWR fleet as relatively young, it's only the IETs that are youngish. Even the 387s will be 10 years old by late 2025

I am assuming 4 sets of 4 coaches on Castle HSTs will be leaving (I know there are more, but basing it on what is used in service). But will still have lots of old trains : the 40+ year old night Riveria fleet, the 150s (38-39 years old next year), the 158s and 165s (about 34-35 years old in 2025), even youngest 166 will be 33 years old.

Of course if 175s arrive, and nothing else changes by 2028 the average age of fleet will grow to 18-19 years

If the trains work reliably and the seats are comfortable then the only people who will care are the “we’re more hard done by than you” brigade. As numerous examples have shown, “new trains” frequently does not equate (immediately) to “more reliable and more comfortable trains”. Doesn’t mean to say they shouldn’t be moving the procurement process for new trains forward, but who’s to say they aren’t?

 

[Towers]

If I have done my calculations correctly, then even if GWR get all the 175s, by end of 2025 the average age of the fleet will be more than current 15 years. Increased to about average of 15.5 years.
So even as stopgap, by age fleet will be worse than now (summer 2024), the only upside is about net 4% in more seats.

Although at first glance, some might think of GWR fleet as relatively young, it's only the IETs that are youngish. Even the 387s will be 10 years old by late 2025

I am assuming 4 sets of 4 coaches on Castle HSTs will be leaving (I know there are more, but basing it on what is used in service). But will still have lots of old trains : the 40+ year old night Riveria fleet, the 150s (38-39 years old next year), the 158s and 165s (about 34-35 years old in 2025), even youngest 166 will be 33 years old.

Of course if 175s arrive, and nothing else changes by 2028 the average age of fleet will grow to 18-19 years

Does it matter, though?! Hitachi’s efforts more than adequately demonstrate that new doesn’t mean good; I’d take a nearly 50 year old HST over an 80x any day of the week if there was a choice! And a near 40 year old 158 can deliver a much better ride quality than some brand new stuff manages. Fleet age is just a largely irrelevant number, it’s the quality of the kit and the upkeep that makes the difference.

 

[John R]

Of course if 175s arrive, and nothing else changes by 2028 the average age of fleet will grow to 18-19 years

Given rolling stock should have a lifespan of up to 40 years (particularly electric stock), I don't think there is anything untoward about an average age around the 20 mark. And as others have said, the perceived quality for passengers is dependent on many more factors than age.

 

[Mollman]

If I have done my calculations correctly, then even if GWR get all the 175s, by end of 2025 the average age of the fleet will be more than current 15 years. Increased to about average of 15.5 years.
So even as stopgap, by age fleet will be worse than now (summer 2024), the only upside is about net 4% in more seats.

Although at first glance, some might think of GWR fleet as relatively young, it's only the IETs that are youngish. Even the 387s will be 10 years old by late 2025

I am assuming 4 sets of 4 coaches on Castle HSTs will be leaving (I know there are more, but basing it on what is used in service). But will still have lots of old trains : the 40+ year old night Riveria fleet, the 150s (38-39 years old next year), the 158s and 165s (about 34-35 years old in 2025), even youngest 166 will be 33 years old.

Of course if 175s arrive, and nothing else changes by 2028 the average age of fleet will grow to 18-19 years

Don't forget that Project Churchward (new regional fleet) is still a possibility, however with TPE, Northern, Southeastern and Chiltern all out to tender for potential new rolling stock it makes sense to wait until these have been resolved before going to market. Also gives time for a new electrification strategy!

 

[jamieh27]

Don't forget that Project Churchwood (new regional fleet) is still a possibility, however with TPE, Northern, Southeastern and Chiltern all out to tender for potential new rolling stock it makes sense to wait until these have been resolved before going to market. Also gives time for a new electrification strategy!

Yep and also I belive some OHLE Masts have been installed in the Chippenham area.

 

[John R]

Yep and also I belive some OHLE Masts have been installed in the Chippenham area.

You sure these aren’t just the ones that were already installed before the decision to cut back to east of Chippenham?

 

[jamieh27]

You sure these aren’t just the ones that were already installed before the decision to cut back to east of Chippenham?

Not sure not noticed them before.

 

[WAB]

Given rolling stock should have a lifespan of up to 40 years (particularly electric stock), I don't think there is anything untoward about an average age around the 20 mark. And as others have said, the perceived quality for passengers is dependent on many more factors than age.

@Clarence Yard has mentioned upthread that considerable numbers of 150s and 158s are out of traffic. I'm no fleet engineer but it doesn't look like Sprinters are going to be able to hold on to anything other than light duties for much longer. I also seem to recall that the Turbos are becoming more problematic. So saying that the average age is acceptable is all well and good but doesn't fix the underlying issue of not enough units being available for traffic. More comfortable older units don't do much for passengers sat awaiting repairs...

 

[driverd]

@Clarence Yard has mentioned upthread that considerable numbers of 150s and 158s are out of traffic. I'm no fleet engineer but it doesn't look like Sprinters are going to be able to hold on to anything other than light duties for much longer.

Bit hyperbolic really, given that northern England pretty much relies on Sprinters and managers a fairly decent service.

I also seem to recall that the Turbos are becoming more problematic. So saying that the average age is acceptable is all well and good but doesn't fix the underlying issue of not enough units being available for traffic. More comfortable older units don't do much for passengers sat awaiting repairs...

New units famously struggle to deliver a reliable service for a fair few years after introduction. A short formed train that works is always better than one that sits down half way to destination and blocks the route in the process.

Long lead times on parts is just a fact of life at the moment, as explained upthread. New trains still need parts.

 

[Irascible]

Does beg the question of why, though - the sprinter powertrain isn't either complicated or heavily using unique equipment ( I don't think you can get less unique than voith+cummins! ), and it's not leaning into old generation electronics like the Networkers, so what is the actual problem? is it really scarcity or is it logistics?

The GWR West fleet is considerably older on average than the entire fleet... OTOH I'd rather any of them than a CAF unit.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s both scarcity and logistics. Nothing new here - I started in the 1970’s and getting bits was a constant problem then, thanks to all the then strikes disrupting the production or repair of parts.

The supply chain recently has been badly affected by COVID, wars and, for some bits, a certain decision called BREXIT. If you are looking at repairables (where you send the old part back in exchange for a refurbished one), that chain has got very long for some key items.

In some cases the supplier has called it a day and alternative suppliers had to be found. That isn’t a five minute job because it may seem easy to get one made but it has to be proved to be of the right quality, especially if it is a safety critical component.

It isn’t only the older stock that has been affected recently but for those operators who have 15x or 16x stock, the obsolescence factor is increasing.

 

[Snow1964]

Given rolling stock should have a lifespan of up to 40 years (particularly electric stock), I don't think there is anything untoward about an average age around the 20 mark. And as others have said, the perceived quality for passengers is dependent on many more factors than age.

Electric rolling stock might manage 40 years, but very few diesel trains do, (most first generation DMUs only managed nearer 30 years), and those that get to age 40 normally had a proportion of the fleet withdrawn to be parted out for spare parts.

As @Clarence Yard has clearly explained, the aging GWR 15x and 16x fleet is now simply wearing through parts, faster than spare parts can be bought, or exchanged for refurbished parts. The effect is have quite a number of units semi-permanently out of service (or stopped awaiting repair in Railway speak). So from available for service no different to if a token number were formally withdrawn.

It brings a dilemma should a proportion of 175s be seen as replacements (thus allowing small number of older fleet to be withdrawn and parted out for extra spares), but that reduces the economic justification for the 175s if some are replacements rather than extra for capacity. Or do GWR need to push DFT for extra capacity knowing they will have a handful of units that are always unserviceable, waiting parts, not able to enter service, so effectively dead anyway.

If all 175s arrive, and about 16 vehicles replace castle HSTs, and about 30-35 release the IETs covering Cardiff-SW and Bristol-Worcester trains, and about 10-20 replace the dead 15x and 16x then West hasn't really got any extra local capacity.

And of course it will be 5-7 years before any trains under project Churchward enter service and there is a big question of being able to maintain all the 15x and 16x for another 5-7 years as already can't keep them all in service.

 

[John R]

Electric rolling stock might manage 40 years, but very few diesel trains do, (most first generation DMUs only managed nearer 30 years), and those that get to age 40 normally had a proportion of the fleet withdrawn to be parted out for spare parts.

I’d agree that the first generation units didn’t last beyond 30 years, but, excluding the Pacer fleet, where issues around accessibility and political dislike of them forced a slightly early withdrawal, the evidence of the first second generation units to be built is that a fleet can reach around 40 years, though that seems to be the limit, albeit with the lower availability issues described (which should be factored into overall long term fleet planning, rather than come as a surprise at the time).

 

[158760]

Yep and also I belive some OHLE Masts have been installed in the Chippenham area.

You sure these aren’t just the ones that were already installed before the decision to cut back to east of Chippenham?

Nothing new has been installed - the masts were installed years ago and run between just west of Chippenham and Thingley Jn. The electrification currently ends at Christian Malford Substation.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If all 175s arrive, and about 16 vehicles replace castle HSTs, and about 30-35 release the IETs covering Cardiff-SW and Bristol-Worcester trains, and about 10-20 replace the dead 15x and 16x then West hasn't really got any extra local capacity.

I'm not sure you'd need that many for Bristol–Worcester. The IETs on that run are carrying around fresh air for much of their journey, and there's no need for first class or the kitchen. It should be fine reverting to a 2- or 3-car unit.

 

[Deepgreen]

I wonder if there are any (positive) ramifications for the North Downs line here. We are back to 2 car units on far more occasions than is OK.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I wonder if there are any (positive) ramifications for the North Downs line here. We are back to 2 car units on far more occasions than is OK.

The idea is to restore a standby turbo at Reading once the 175s are in which should help with availability.

 

[Deepgreen]

The idea is to restore a standby turbo at Reading once the 175s are in which should help with availability.

Thanks. The question then is - would the standby be a two-car?

 

[Bikeman78]

To be fair Alstom usually managed to deliver the contracted 23 in service each day under TFW. If maintained properly, they are fairly reliable trains.

It was 24 a day in the ATW era. It only dropped to 23 for the recent refurbishment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==

Other reasons seemingly quoted have been timetable related, or the desire to serve Exeter Central directly. Is there any formal indication of the reason, rather than speculation?

On a personal note, I would far rather retain direct trains from Cardiff to the south west than have a direct train to Exeter Central. There are normally five trains per hour between the two stations in Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==

That presumably depends on how many IETs are currently diagrammed for non-IC duties. Obviously it's quite a few, but I doubt it's getting on for 20, which is presumably roughly how many 175s will be available for service once the HSTs have been replaced.

I can't remember how many HST diagrams there were. Was it 12? In which case there are probably nine IETs on Cardiff-Plymouth-Penzance.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It was 24 a day in the ATW era. It only dropped to 23 for the recent refurbishment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==


On a personal note, I would far rather retain direct trains from Cardiff to the south west than have a direct train to Exeter Central. There are normally five trains per hour between the two stations in Exeter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==


I can't remember how many HST diagrams there were. Was it 12? In which case there are probably nine IETs on Cardiff-Plymouth-Penzance.

It’s 11 x 80x on Cardiff - South West and 3 x 80x on Bristol - Gloucester/Worcester

 

[Bikeman78]

Maintenance staff here (TFW) have told me that there are a good number of parts, which do not fail ‘regularly’ and have to be custom made which costs a fortune so having them ‘in stock’ makes absolutely no sense but equally is a nightmare once a unit needs one.

There is apparently also a system that allows TOC’s to see if another TOC has a part in stock and can as it then if they’re willing to sell it.

I would expect a home depot to hold spares for just about any part that would render the train useless if it failed. Especially if it known that making the part will take a long time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==

As @Clarence Yard has clearly explained, the aging GWR 15x and 16x fleet is now simply wearing through parts, faster than spare parts can be bought, or exchanged for refurbished parts. The effect is have quite a number of units semi-permanently out of service (or stopped awaiting repair in Railway speak). So from available for service no different to if a token number were formally withdrawn.

Ironically the Welsh 150s seem to be doing fine mechanically and are being taken out of service when they are due or overhaul. Hopefully they are being stripped for spares rather than the valuable components being scrapped whilst other similar units stand idle waiting for parts.

 

[Deepgreen]

I would expect a home depot to hold spares for just about any part that would render the train useless if it failed. Especially if it known that making the part will take a long time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2024 ==


Ironically the Welsh 150s seem to be doing fine mechanically and are being taken out of service when they are due or overhaul. Hopefully they are being stripped for spares rather than the valuable components being scrapped whilst other similar units stand idle waiting for parts.

That would involve a degree of logical thought, though...

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I'm not sure you'd need that many for Bristol–Worcester. The IETs on that run are carrying around fresh air for much of their journey, and there's no need for first class or the kitchen. It should be fine reverting to a 2- or 3-car unit.

I boarded the 17.38 from Bristol Temple Meads (towards Worcester) recently and was amazed at how busy it was. Ok, it’s a peak train, but two or three coaches probably isn’t enough for that one.

 

[John R]

I boarded the 17.38 from Bristol Temple Meads (towards Worcester) recently and was amazed at how busy it was. Ok, it’s a peak train, but two or three coaches probably isn’t enough for that one.

I guess the question is for how far is it busy? You don't want to provide capacity all the way on a journey taking an hour and a half (and a 3 hour return) if it's only the 10 minutes up to Parkway which is a problem.