Great Western Railway awarded National Rail Contract until 2025

[tnc1997]

Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere but Great Western Railway have been awarded a National Rail Contract until 2025 with an optional three-year extension.

The new NRC starts on 26 June, when the train operating company's current contractual agreement was due to end.

Its plans for GWR over the next three years include extensions of digital ticketing, working with Network Rail and local councils to introduce MetroWest in Bristol, the replacement of diesel rolling stock as a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and continuing to improve the recently-reopened Dartmoor Line to Okehampton.

I presume that this award will mostly be a continuation of the status quo with the replacement of diesel stock referring to the introduction of the Class 769 in the Thames Valley?

I am particularly looking forward to the introduction of MetroWest but then again I am slightly biased

 

[AlexNL]

The rolling stock which makes up the GWR diesel fleet is now at least 30 years old (158, 165, 166), with some being at least 40 years old by the time this NRC expires (150, Castles). It's due for replacement.

It takes a long time to procure new rolling stock and to have it enter service. Given decarbonisation goals, I would expect procuring another batch of Civity or FLIRT DMUs is out of the question - which means it has to be something new (hydrogen?) which will mean longer lead times.

Realistically all I expect GWR to do during this contract is to set things into motion, with the actual entry into service during whatever comes post-GWR.

 

[anthony263]

I can see alstom getting a order of additional hydrogen powered units if they do
Build the suggested 10 units

 

[Bletchleyite]

This might just be overtalking the Greenford branch experiment, i.e. just be battery units on the Thames Valley branches, and 158s to replace the Castles.

 

[swt_passenger]

This might just be overtalking the Greenford branch experiment, i.e. just be battery units on the Thames Valley branches, and 158s to replace the Castles.

I agree, it’ll be basic stuff to spin ex-D78 battery units as a huge improvement. What GWR said is towards the end of their PR about it:

GWR is to start a comprehensive review of its diesel fleet to deliver better reliability, greater comfort and quicker journeys for customers.

A fleet strategy plan aims to reduce the costs of a mixed fleet and cut carbon by replacing diesel-only trains with greener units such as battery-only trains.

GWR is already working with manufacturer Vivarail to trial new battery-charging technology on the Greenford branch line.

National Rail Contract awarded to Great Western Railway

The Department for Transport (DfT) has today awarded a National Rail Contract (NRC) to Great Western Railway (GWR) to continue operating the Great Western network.

news.gwr.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair they might also consider battery trains for the non-through-running Cornish branches (which would get rid of some 150s). I suspect that may be the reason why the trial involves a dedicated charging system rather than just the otherwise obvious option (for the Thames Valley) of charging from the OHLE.

The Castles will almost certainly be replaced by 158s, very little else makes sense aside from electrification of the line all the way to Penzance.

 

[Master29]

Feel a bit confused here. Maybe someone can enlighten me. By Great Western Railway do they actually mean First group or are we just talking GWR as a brand? I was hoping not to be honest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Feel a bit confused here. Maybe someone can enlighten me. By Great Western Railway do they actually mean First group? I was hoping not to be honest.

Yes, the existing TOC which is FirstGroup operated.

 

[Master29]

Yes, the existing TOC which is FirstGroup operated.

Thanks. I was probably just hoping for a different TOC but only my opinion.

 

[AlexNL]

This is just a continuation of things as they are now, while GBR is still ramping up. By the time this National Rail Contract ends, GBR should be up and running and a new operator appointed to take over under GBR's terms.

 

[Minstral25]

The rolling stock which makes up the GWR diesel fleet is now at least 30 years old (158, 165, 166), with some being at least 40 years old by the time this NRC expires (150, Castles). It's due for replacement.

It takes a long time to procure new rolling stock and to have it enter service. Given decarbonisation goals, I would expect procuring another batch of Civity or FLIRT DMUs is out of the question - which means it has to be something new (hydrogen?) which will mean longer lead times.

Realistically all I expect GWR to do during this contract is to set things into motion, with the actual entry into service during whatever comes post-GWR.

769's are between 32 and 36 years old

Must not forget they are refurbished old stock with a diesel motor attached not new stock. Happy to be corrected but much of the equipment and things like seats etc. are original fitments.

 

[AlexNL]

769's are between 32 and 36 years old

I completely forgot about those white elephants

 

[fgwrich]

769's are between 32 and 36 years old

Must not forget they are refurbished old stock with a diesel motor attached not new stock. Happy to be corrected but much of the equipment and things like seats etc. are original fitments.

Indeed they are. If you look at them closely, you can still spot hints of First Capital Connect! (Which shows you how good the FCC refurbishments of the /4 fleet was and how refurbishments since have left them in ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed they are. If you look at them closely, you can still spot hints of First Capital Connect! (Which shows you how good the FCC refurbishments of the /4 fleet was and how refurbishments since have left them in ).

They weren't that good, they kept the old seats and just splashed some paint around.

The /2s are the nice ones, with new Chapmans.

 

[JonathanH]

The /2s are the nice ones, with new Chapmans.

Those 'new' seats have been fitted in the 7 319/2s for nearly 25 years now. Those units obviously weren't available to GWR for the 769 programme.

 

[Irascible]

Introduce new stock, average age of fleet goes *up*! huzzah.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those 'new' seats have been fitted in the 7 319/2s for nearly 25 years now. Those units obviously weren't available to GWR for the 769 programme.

I meant new at the time of refurbishment as distinct from new now. The other 319s have the original (and pretty awful) Ashbournes.

 

[Pinus contorta]

I meant new at the time of refurbishment as distinct from new now. The other 319s have the original (and pretty awful) Ashbournes.

The seats in some of the Northern ones nearly swallowed you alive when they collapsed and fell to bits.

 

[BayPaul]

To be fair they might also consider battery trains for the non-through-running Cornish branches (which would get rid of some 150s). I suspect that may be the reason why the trial involves a dedicated charging system rather than just the otherwise obvious option (for the Thames Valley) of charging from the OHLE.

The Castles will almost certainly be replaced by 158s, very little else makes sense aside from electrification of the line all the way to Penzance.

That could probably eliminate all the 150s and Castles- battery trains for the short branches, 158s for Cardiff - Penzance, Barnstaple and Newquay, 16x for Devon Metro.

 

[pne]

very little else makes sense aside from electrification of the line all the way to Penzance.

Electrifying the whole thing would be nice.

(Would that cause any problems at Dawlish during high tide, though?)

 

[Snow1964]

Just checked, and still nothing on DfT website (even though this new contract is due to start in 10 days time)

Was hoping to find more details on the rolling stock plan, but without it, very difficult to guess what is happening

However, like others it is fairly obvious that GWR has many trains over 30 years old, and some will be nearer 40 years old in 2025 (and even older if the extension to 2028 takes place)

The Castle HSTs are already 39+ years old
The 150s date from about 1986
The 769s (if they ever get used) date from 1986-89
The 158s date from 1989-92
The 165s date from 1990-92
The 166s date from 1992-93

For completeness the class 387s are 3-6 years old and the express 800 & 802 fleet is only 3-5 years old, so unlikely to change (even though they could really do with some 7car versions and fewer 5car versions).

What worries me is that although there is regular overcrowding on some lines (especially those in Wiltshire, Cotswolds, Devon) and much of this is leisure and local overcrowding rather than traditional commuter routes, I am not hearing anything about how it will be tackled.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Just checked, and still nothing on DfT website (even though this new contract is due to start in 10 days time)

In general, the contracts have been being published about six months after coming into effect.

 

[dgl]

Going by talk from another forum looks like FLIRT's are potentially being looked at by First/GWR, supposedly they were also part of First's Anglia bid.
They already know what size of FLIRT will fit where (including the Devon branches) and it will be good to see no CAF stock down here.
FLIRT's from Weymouth to Bristol, count me in.
Even with the Turbo's coming down here they are not exactly new and it would make sense to replace all the diesel stock at a similar time so that you have a common fleet.
Naturally having the power cars makes conversion to another source of power easier as you can just replace the power car, so long as the rest of the train gets the volts it needs it disn;t care what powers it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Naturally having the power cars makes conversion to another source of power easier as you can just replace the power car, so long as the rest of the train gets the volts it needs it disn;t care what powers it.

How did that go with the Class 769s again?

In all seriousness, I would agree that all new DMUs should be DEMUs so that this sort of change can more easily be made, ideally with structural passive provision for pantograph and transformer. It doesn't overly matter if it's a "power car" or underneath, just that all you need is "some sort of power source" at a given specification which can be swapped for another one later.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Those units obviously weren't available to GWR for the 769 programme.

They wouldn’t have been ready for ages as half are still on lease with LNR and the other half have only just been released.

 

[py_megapixel]

If GWR are looking at new regional stock my view is that FLIRTs are the only reasonable option, because that is the only thing currently on offer in this country that can offer level boarding. The fact that it wasn't considered a standard thing to require for the last big round of orders is a disgrace really; they've been doing it on the continent for years.

How did that go with the Class 769s again?

I suppose the difference is that FLIRTs are intentionally "modular" (no idea if that's the right term in this context) whereas the 769s are a bodge on top of a 30+ year old design.

 

[Snow1964]

If GWR are looking at new regional stock my view is that FLIRTs are the only reasonable option, because that is the only thing currently on offer in this country that can offer level boarding. The fact that it wasn't considered a standard thing to require for the last big round of orders is a disgrace really; they've been doing it on the continent for years.



I suppose the difference is that FLIRTs are intentionally "modular" (no idea if that's the right term in this context) whereas the 769s are a bodge on top of a 30+ year old design.

Actually more like a 40+ year old design, as the 319s were basically 317 style bodyshells with some updates, and the then new GTO (gate turn off) thyristers in a size powerful enough.

GWR has a number of routes where platforms are 120-130m which allows 5 x23m trains. Would FLIRTs (of same design as those in Anglia) be able to be made in a suitable length. A six + power car would be (2 x 21.4m) + (4 x 15.7m) + 7m = about 115m (roughly same as 5car x 23m) About right length for platforms, but perhaps would need 2 power cars.

So would seem easy solution (existing design that works etc), but really some routes could do with 6car x 23m capacity (although as that would require serious platform extension, should perhaps be in an a infrastructure speculation thread)

 

[Trainbike46]

Would 6-car with SDO be an option? You might still have to extend some platforms, but at least not all of them

 

[Bletchleyite]

GWR has a number of routes where platforms are 120-130m which allows 5 x23m trains. Would FLIRTs (of same design as those in Anglia) be able to be made in a suitable length. A five + power car would be (5 x 21.4m) + 15.7m = 122.7m About right length for platforms (perhaps some would need tiny extension of couple of metres). So would seem easy solution (existing design that works etc), but really some routes could do with 6car capacity (although as that would require serious platform extension, should perhaps be in an a infrastructure speculation thread)

FLIRT vehicles aren't all the same length, but I guess that's approximately right.

If you don't intend to work them from the back cab you can deal with up to about 10m of overhang by changing the door positions on the end vehicles as Merseyrail did.

 

[swt_passenger]

Electrifying the whole thing would be nice.

(Would that cause any problems at Dawlish during high tide, though?)

High tides on their own aren’t a problem, they occur twice a day every day of the year. It’s not really the tide state that causes the problem, it’s the superimposed random storms.