Sly Old Fox
Member
This is why I’ve been saying for weeks that until GWR announce the 175s as coming, they aren’t, and this thread should remain in speculative discussion.
This is why I’ve been saying for weeks that until GWR announce the 175s as coming, they aren’t, and this thread should remain in speculative discussion.
I’m not sure why you would worry about that, there is nothing to suggest that the union reps have an issue with them.I worry that driver reps could get too much of a say.
Surely if they were ok to be driven by TFW Drivers (no doubt signed off by Aslef reps) what would be any different that Gwr drivers would refuse/decline to driver them?I’m not sure why you would worry about that, there is nothing to suggest that the union reps have an issue with them.
The whole reason they’re involved is to ensure that things are to an acceptable standard. It’s not a case of rejecting units but if something was significantly below an acceptable standard, that it gets changed.
Ultimately, as a driver, if you have a **** up then there is potential for severe consequences and you’re on the line for it so things need to be correct.
It’s not much good answering to a judge saying “well the seat I sat on for 3 hours was really uncomfortable as it’s not adjustable and every time I had to lift my foot off the DSD I banged my knee on the desk so I became distracted and that’s why I slid through a red signal causing a collision killed 40 people.
Anyway, the 175’s were the favourite unit of many many drivers at TFW.
Comfortable, quick and reliable.
See the various arguments about 319s /769s.Surely if they were ok to be driven by TFW Drivers (no doubt signed off by Aslef reps) what would be any different that Gwr drivers would refuse/decline to driver them?
They also had works I mean if ASLEF are going to kick up a fuss about the units its going to be more mayhem and all the work done for nothing.Surely if they were ok to be driven by TFW Drivers (no doubt signed off by Aslef reps) what would be any different that Gwr drivers would refuse/decline to driver them?
Older units being refurbished though, so new specs. In the grand scheme of things 175s are relatively younger and better setup.See the various arguments about 319s /769s.
Doesn’t have to have been. Until they offer the job the money doesn’t need to be there…Money must have been released by the DfT for the job advertised recently regarding class 175 introduction so at this point it’s more than speculation, even if it’s waiting for the the t’s to be crossed and the i’s to be dotted.
I wonder if anyone would look at the Castle HSTs for open access. Let me guess, running costs....I think it nearer 7 or 8 5car IETs will be released (3 on Cardiff-Exeter leg, couple doing full Cardiff-Plymouth, 1 or 2 used on Bristol-Worcester locals, 1 on Cornwall local covering lack of DMUs).
Exeter-Cornwall still uses Castle HSTs, 3 units (or is it 4) each day. Although a few spare sets still exist, even if not in service
So around 70 class 175 vehicles, works out about 12- 16 vehicles releasing HSTs for scrap, around 35 vehicles releasing IETs, and roughly 15-22 for Devon and Cornwall services like Oakhampton (depending on how count spares required)
In practice there are handful of 158 and 16x units (around 10-15 vehicles) semi-permanently out of service, because of lack of spare parts, so assuming these are parted out to keep rest of fleet going then Bristol will only gain a net of about dozen vehicles (to cover enhanced MetroWest and the stock shortages on Portsmouth-Cardiff).
So with GWR growing in the west, by next summer, even if all the 175s are in service, unless there is a massive investment in spare parts for 165x fleet, probably still be capacity problems, and having to use IETs on local services.
Romic (exporters of HSTs to Mexico and Nigeria) have a reservation on all HST stock owned by Angel and Porterbrook (Railways Illustrated, July 2024)I wonder if anyone would look at the Castle HSTs for open access. Let me guess, running costs....
What could be more positive than talking with your staff, bringing them with you in a major change and identifying any route specific risks and issues that need to be addressed during training? There’s also the big plus of a unionised workforce - staff trust their reps and fall in line with what’s been agreed by them on their behalf.Surely if they were ok to be driven by TFW Drivers (no doubt signed off by Aslef reps) what would be any different that Gwr drivers would refuse/decline to driver them?
When TFW took on GWRs 153s, TFW drivers union deemed the seats in the small cabs unsuitable but was only raised after they were taken on which lead to delays in introducing the fleet while replacements were ordered. So it's always worth consulting everyone first.What could be more positive than talking with your staff, bringing them with you in a major change and identifying any route specific risks and issues that need to be addressed during training? There’s also the big plus of a unionised workforce - staff trust their reps and fall in line with what’s been agreed by them on their behalf.
The alternative is an imposed change that gets into trouble because it doesn’t address something that was bleeding obvious to traincrew, but not to management.
769s were modified with additional diesel to makre bi modes which the project was shambles.See the various arguments about 319s /769s.
Guess that's a no then. Thank you.Romic (exporters of HSTs to Mexico and Nigeria) have a reservation on all HST stock owned by Angel and Porterbrook (Railways Illustrated, July 2024)
It's probably more correct to say Romic have first refusal on them. Not that Porterbrook have many HST vehicles now - Colas and NMT power cars plus some of the NMT trailers and that is it. There is also the First-owned fleet...Romic (exporters of HSTs to Mexico and Nigeria) have a reservation on all HST stock owned by Angel and Porterbrook (Railways Illustrated, July 2024)
...Even some of the LSL fleet - 40902 being one vehicle since exported.It's probably more correct to say Romic have first refusal on them. Not that Porterbrook have many HST vehicles now - Colas and NMT power cars plus some of the NMT trailers and that is it. There is also the First-owned fleet...
Interesting, I must say, it’s seriously disappointing if it’s only 20 and not the full 27.The latest issue of Today's Railways UK has a short news item which states that "around 20 of the 27 class 175s are expected to transfer to GWR, according to First Rail Managing Director Steve Montgomery..." Routes mentioned are "principally.....Cardiff - Bristol/Plymouth and Plymouth - Penzance". This seems to contradict earlier posts on this thread which were suggesting that all 27 units would be coming and that routes would include Barnstaple and Okehampton.
I suppose it'll be down to the condition TfW have left them in. It didn't sound like they treated them very nicely in their twilight years in Wales.Interesting, I must say, it’s seriously disappointing if it’s only 20 and not the full 27.
None should be in such a state that they can’t be taken in by GWR though, even if they need some work. With it being 20 I suspect it has more to do with money.I suppose it'll be down to the condition TfW have left them in. It didn't sound like they treated them very nicely in their twilight years in Wales.
Well, it's not like there's much demand for the rest of them, and GWR are severely short of stock.Where did the notion that GWR would get all of them come from?
This post from the previous thread in speculative discussion, among other posts from those in the industry:Where did the notion that GWR would get all of them come from?
Confirmed to drivers via an Aslef circular. 175s will be coming, all 27 of them.
Yes - but IIRC one of the issues that delayed the start of driver training (and indirectly led them to being canned) was objections to the cab layout.769s were modified with additional diesel to makre bi modes which the project was shambles.
Or someone, somewhere, got the wrong end of the stick (that could be either the person telling or the person hearing). Doesn’t have to have been deliberate deceit.This post from the previous thread in speculative discussion, among other posts from those in the industry:
If it's now only going to be 20, that probably means either ASLEF were lied to, or something else has come up that has changed circumstances (such as some of the units not being fit enough to go).
I worry that driver reps could get too much of a say.
Units are needed, they're available and clearly GWR and DfT want them available. They have been fine for a long time with TfW/ATW. If unions get to deny units that seem to have had happy service minus a few issues for so long, something needs to change (ducks for cover)
Surely if they were ok to be driven by TFW Drivers (no doubt signed off by Aslef reps) what would be any different that Gwr drivers would refuse/decline to driver them?
The issue with the 769s was that the cab was a serious downgrade from what the Reading drivers were used to on Turbos and 387s. Why would anyone happily agree to making their work place worse?See the various arguments about 319s /769s.
Indeed - but the original point I was responding to was a general comment about why there could be any objections to units that had already been in use elsewhere. As you say - in this case, the 175s are bound to be a general improvement on at least some of what they will replace.The issue with the 769s was that the cab was a serious downgrade from what the Reading drivers were used to on Turbos and 387s. Why would anyone happily agree to making their work place worse?
Except that in such a case the judge is usually the heavenly one that we must all face eventually (if your beliefs align that way).It’s not much good answering to a judge saying “well the seat I sat on for 3 hours was really uncomfortable as it’s not adjustable and every time I had to lift my foot off the DSD I banged my knee on the desk so I became distracted and that’s why I slid through a red signal causing a collision killed 40 people.
I think the railway’s controlling mind is a grade or two below that one?Except that in such a case the judge is usually the heavenly one that we must all face eventually (if your beliefs align that way).