• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 175 to GWR

Sly Old Fox

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Messages
448
Location
England
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.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,365
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.

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.
 

Lurcheroo

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2021
Messages
1,232
Location
Wales
I worry that driver reps could get too much of a say.
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.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,531
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.
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 exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
5,213
Location
Somerset
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?
See the various arguments about 319s /769s.
 

jamieh27

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2023
Messages
323
Location
Falmouth
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.
 

Sly Old Fox

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Messages
448
Location
England
Aslef put in their brief to drivers that they were excited about GWR receiving some trains that had been built in this millennium so I don’t think they’ll be too bothered.
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
2,589
Location
Bath
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.
Doesn’t have to have been. Until they offer the job the money doesn’t need to be there…
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,018
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.
I wonder if anyone would look at the Castle HSTs for open access. Let me guess, running costs....
 

class442

Member
Joined
12 May 2024
Messages
45
Location
Midlands
I wonder if anyone would look at the Castle HSTs for open access. Let me guess, running costs....
Romic (exporters of HSTs to Mexico and Nigeria) have a reservation on all HST stock owned by Angel and Porterbrook (Railways Illustrated, July 2024)
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
1,640
Location
Newport
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?
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.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,267
I mean if this doesn't happen, or takes significant time to happen, I'd love to see what the stopgap plan is. Because surely the current situation is just not tenable! GWR basically need the 175s (or similar) or they should start to introduce emergency timetables so they can properly form the services that they will run!
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
1,117
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.
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.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
16,956
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...
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,900
Location
Hampshire
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...
...Even some of the LSL fleet - 40902 being one vehicle since exported.

But we digress.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,664
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.
 

Lurcheroo

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2021
Messages
1,232
Location
Wales
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.
Interesting, I must say, it’s seriously disappointing if it’s only 20 and not the full 27.
 

Lurcheroo

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2021
Messages
1,232
Location
Wales
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.
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.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,942
Location
Taunton or Kent
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:
Confirmed to drivers via an Aslef circular. 175s will be coming, all 27 of them.

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).
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
5,213
Location
Somerset
769s were modified with additional diesel to makre bi modes which the project was shambles.
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.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

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).
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.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,549
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?

See the various arguments about 319s /769s.
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?

That isn't likely to happen here: a 175 cab is a very comfortable place to be, and a big improvement over the 150s and 158s they'll be replacing. I can't speak about how they'll compare comfort wise against a HST but it should placate ASLEF's demands for a safer cab at least.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
5,213
Location
Somerset
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?
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.
 

contrex

Member
Joined
19 May 2009
Messages
1,192
Location
St Werburghs, Bristol
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.
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).
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
1,640
Location
Newport
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).
I think the railway’s controlling mind is a grade or two below that one?
 

Top