GWR fleet procurement

[FGW_DID]

Less than ten years ago, I can't believe I never knew that! It can't have worked very many passenger services there or stayed around for long. I live very close to a couple of the North Downs line stations.

I can’t remember exactly why it was hired in but it wasn’t for too long, a week or two at the most. IIRC it was decided that the Chiltern Turbo would be ‘restricted’ to the Greenford branch whilst we had it, as the Chiltern Turbos are 75mph and ours are 90mph there would be a chance that it would end up coupled to one of ours and a forgetful driver may forget about the speed differential.

 

[fgwrich]

I can’t remember exactly why it was hired in but it wasn’t for too long, a week or two at the most. IIRC it was decided that the Chiltern Turbo would be ‘restricted’ to the Greenford branch whilst we had it, as the Chiltern Turbos are 75mph and ours are 90mph there would be a chance that it would end up coupled to one of ours and a forgetful driver may forget about the speed differential.

I think it was when the 150/0s were receiving work at either Brush or Doncaster, one seemed to take longer than the other and the /0s were about to head westwards. Initially the Basingstoke branch was considered for it as at the time I think it was considered contained (due to the /0s being the preserve of the line) and being close to Reading, but the Greenford was chosen last minute as Chiltern could supply a unit each day from their end (Wembley depot > West Ruislip < West Ealing). Certainly having a 75MPH Turbo on Reading > Basing wouldn’t have made that much of a difference, from memory I don’t think the line speed is higher than 75 anyway.

 

[anthony263]

Less than ten years ago, I can't believe I never knew that! It can't have worked very many passenger services there or stayed around for long. I live very close to a couple of the North Downs line stations.

I got it being used on the Paddington to Greenford service

 

[JN114]

It probably isn’t nearly as grand as some have suggested…

My money would be on some (perhaps 9 - the 3 ex-GWR and 6 ex-c2c) 387s from Great Northern (whether they like it or not), to displace IETs off Cardiff work to work further West; releasing some pressure on both Hitachi and West DMU fleets.

GN are going through their own procurement process for an enormous, near doubling of their fleet; which is totally unnecessary unless they were giving some stock up elsewhere.

Zero training requirements, and 6 of the 9 have been Reading based already. Delivers improvements and could start off an internal cascade immediately.

Possibly also if any are available immediately then some Sprinters to bolster the Exeter DMU fleet, and allow Turbos or 158s to come back to Bristol to release pressure there, but I don’t believe there’s any 150s to hand in short term.

Messing about with new-to-GWR DMUs is a longer term game; and the little that has been said has been about small, fast wins.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Presumably the uk government can theoretically wash their hands of the 175s - they’re a Welsh problem!

They are most definitely not a Welsh problem, as the TfW leases have ended. Any future use is solely a problem for whichever leasing company owns them.

 

[Fincra5]

It probably isn’t nearly as grand as some have suggested…

My money would be on some (perhaps 9 - the 3 ex-GWR and 6 ex-c2c) 387s from Great Northern (whether they like it or not), to displace IETs off Cardiff work to work further West; releasing some pressure on both Hitachi and West DMU fleets.

GN are going through their own procurement process for an enormous, near doubling of their fleet; which is totally unnecessary unless they were giving some stock up elsewhere.

Zero training requirements, and 6 of the 9 have been Reading based already. Delivers improvements and could start off an internal cascade immediately.

Possibly also if any are available immediately then some Sprinters to bolster the Exeter DMU fleet, and allow Turbos or 158s to come back to Bristol to release pressure there, but I don’t believe there’s any 150s to hand in short term.

Messing about with new-to-GWR DMUs is a longer term game; and the little that has been said has been about small, fast wins.

The GN fleet isn't doubling its a like for like replacement. The idea being the 30, 387s displaced by whatever GN get, will be moved down south to SN, where there is a shortage of units. (SN have lost 65ish units in the last couple of years!)

Your idea could work if GN don't do the Peak Additionals that currently 387s do.

 

[RPI]

It probably isn’t nearly as grand as some have suggested…

My money would be on some (perhaps 9 - the 3 ex-GWR and 6 ex-c2c) 387s from Great Northern (whether they like it or not), to displace IETs off Cardiff work to work further West; releasing some pressure on both Hitachi and West DMU fleets.

GN are going through their own procurement process for an enormous, near doubling of their fleet; which is totally unnecessary unless they were giving some stock up elsewhere.

Zero training requirements, and 6 of the 9 have been Reading based already. Delivers improvements and could start off an internal cascade immediately.

Possibly also if any are available immediately then some Sprinters to bolster the Exeter DMU fleet, and allow Turbos or 158s to come back to Bristol to release pressure there, but I don’t believe there’s any 150s to hand in short term.

Messing about with new-to-GWR DMUs is a longer term game; and the little that has been said has been about small, fast wins.

The very minimal 387 work to Cardiff wouldn't free up much in the way of IET's.

 

[The exile]

They are most definitely not a Welsh problem, as the TfW leases have ended. Any future use is solely a problem for whichever leasing company owns them.

In public relations terms they are. If a fuss is made about stock going off lease and doing nothing while passengers play sardines, then the 175s are one example which cannot be laid (directly) at a door in Westminster. (That still leaves plenty that can!!!)

 

[83G/84D]

A 158 certainly can’t do the Gunnislake or Looe Valley branches. And they’re pretty wasteful on the Falmouth branch too - we go on about stock with the wrong door locations on Cardiff - Portsmouth on here, but sticking a 158 on the busy Falmouth branch is just as bad, there’s a lot of student traffic along that line.

158’s not cleared to go to Newquay either.

 

[JN114]

The GN fleet isn't doubling its a like for like replacement. The idea being the 30, 387s displaced by whatever GN get, will be moved down south to SN, where there is a shortage of units. (SN have lost 65ish units in the last couple of years!)

Your idea could work if GN don't do the Peak Additionals that currently 387s do.

Whilst that is logical, is the cascade within wider GTR actually confirmed though? It wouldn’t be the first time in UK rolling stock procurement where operator Y has swooped in and picked up units going off lease that were presumed to be being cascaded to operator X - and I’m not saying GWR would go for whole fleet, just 9 of them; which would still leave 30+ available for Southern.

The very minimal 387 work to Cardiff wouldn't free up much in the way of IET's.

You’re right it wouldn’t - perhaps 4 IETs at most. But they could be available now, to enter service straight away.

***

The paragraph in the company newsletter that triggered this thread a couple of days ago isn’t the first time the managing director has mentioned getting new rolling stock recently. The previous mention a couple of weeks ago listed it as a short-term aim to improve performance for our customers. That’s why I’m unconvinced that this almost entirely speculative discussion is looking down the right path. 20+ cascaded DMUs would be great in the medium term but doesn’t fit the brief.

Any new-to-GWR fleet would take a year to get into service, minimum. By which time the availability of not new-to-GWR trains would be looking a lot better and be a more sensible prospect to bring in.

Until there’s some tangible announcement to go off of; the whole thread should be in speculative discussion. 2 paragraphs in 2 company newsletters is an aspiration not an announcement.

 

[12LDA28C]

And quite apart from that, as things now are, if the DfT tells them to jump, the answer is “how high?”

I'm sure Chiltern would be quite within their rights to keep their own fleet for their own services instead of hiring out units to other operators. Chiltern are regularly short of 165s as it is without sending any elsewhere.

 

[baza585]

But who says it has to be direct replacement? A 158 can do all of them, right? It's certainly done the first two several times lately. If 175s end up on current 158 work, bearing in mind Turbos can't work with 158s either so their lack of interoperability doesn't come into play here, there's not much of an issue. And the end door whines doesn't work as 158s have them too

I also reinstate my point that end doors were only unsuitable for the Portsmouth services because 158s were used in three carriage formations. The few times I get on a 5 car 158 formation there is no trouble at all. If 175s were almost always paired on the route then I don't think there'd be an enormous issue, especially now there's more trains per hour between Bristol and Salisbury. And you could always diagram a pair of Turbos for the busiest Bristol peak service.

Spot on re the overcrowding. There is no issue on loading 4 or 5 car 158s, except if a previous service hasn't run. The problem is when the train is full to capacity and folk have to be persuaded to move down the carriage away from the doors.

4 or 5 car 158s are the right stock for this service. Failing that, similar 175s. It is a failing of the rail industry and politicians which is causing the problem.

Fridays on this route are an absolute nightmare. Looks like I've got a 3 car 166 today on a peak time service yet again.

 

[Julia]

Your idea could work if GN don't do the Peak Additionals that currently 387s do.

The GN peak extras, at least to Peterborough, have been 700/1s for a while. It's getting to the point where we need them half-hourly as per pre-COVID, as some of the morning peak Thameslink stoppers (9Jxx) are full to standing by Arlesey and crammed by Stevenage - but given the DfT, I know that's wishful thinking.

 

[LA50041]

Whilst that is logical, is the cascade within wider GTR actually confirmed though? It wouldn’t be the first time in UK rolling stock procurement where operator Y has swooped in and picked up units going off lease that were presumed to be being cascaded to operator X - and I’m not saying GWR would go for whole fleet, just 9 of them; which would still leave 30+ available for Southern.

Southern are getting the 387's, but this is partly to replace the (up to) 17 x 377's that are due to move to Southeastern

 

[bramling]

The GN fleet isn't doubling its a like for like replacement. The idea being the 30, 387s displaced by whatever GN get, will be moved down south to SN, where there is a shortage of units. (SN have lost 65ish units in the last couple of years!)

Your idea could work if GN don't do the Peak Additionals that currently 387s do.

I reckon GN could deliver the current service with just the 700/0 and the 379s if they restore the GN 700/0 usage to 2018 levels. It wouldn’t leave any room for further expansion though, and doesn’t take into account that it was posted here recently that additional peak Peterborough services are planned in the next timetable change.

Just need to put the Baldocks back and we are largely back to 2019 levels on the GN outers, albeit not as many 12-cars and some off-peak holes that probably don’t matter too much.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Southern are getting the 387's, but this is partly to replace the (up to) 17 x 377's that are due to move to Southeastern

Ooh that’s interesting. I thought Southern were getting some of the /5s from SE, not giving them more. Must have changed

 

[LA50041]

Ooh that’s interesting. I thought Southern were getting some of the /5s from SE, not giving them more. Must have changed

that was the plan when GN were keeping the 387's, but the cascade of the 379's have changed those plans

 

[bramling]

The GN peak extras, at least to Peterborough, have been 700/1s for a while. It's getting to the point where we need them half-hourly as per pre-COVID, as some of the morning peak Thameslink stoppers (9Jxx) are full to standing by Arlesey and crammed by Stevenage - but given the DfT, I know that's wishful thinking.

They aren’t quite all 700/1. Of the three services each peak, one is 8/387, one is 700/0 and one is 700/1.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

that was the plan when GN were keeping the 387's, but the cascade of the 379's have changed those plans

Amazing. Can we look forward to more undesirable networkers facing the axe as a result? I’m guessing it’ll be 377/1.
EDIT: Have continued the discussion in a more appropriate thread to keep this one on topic

 

[Clarence Yard]

The idea of GWR getting additional DMU stock is to replace both the HST and IET stock from regional services, the former for scrap and the latter going back to their old duties.

This will also allow some boosting of local formations elsewhere by the use of any 158 and 16x stock that could also be released by using the remainder of those additional DMUs.

The DfT are now deciding where rolling stock goes so the days of operators swooping for off lease stock has well and truly gone. The 379/377/387 cascade will be (is being) determined by the DfT and any reluctant operators involved will just be told to get on with it.

 

[Snow1964]

Presumably the uk government can theoretically wash their hands of the 175s - they’re a Welsh problem!

They are most definitely not a Welsh problem, as the TfW leases have ended. Any future use is solely a problem for whichever leasing company owns them.

The 175s are everyone's problem who needs to lease a train.

Annoy the Financial markets at your peril, if 175s don't get leased out (along with other younger fleet eg 379s), then market will start pricing leases with much shorter guaranteed rentable life, so everyone will pay more per month to cover the voids.

There is old saying, once bitten, twice shy.
Might get savings short term, but not much of a saving if then pay for it multiple times over during next 30 years.

 

[The exile]

The 175s are everyone's problem who needs to lease a train.

Annoy the Financial markets at your peril, if 175s don't get leased out (along with other younger fleet eg 379s), then market will start pricing leases with much shorter guaranteed rentable life, so everyone will pay more per month to cover the voids.

There is old saying, once bitten, twice shy.
Might get savings short term, but not much of a saving if then pay for it multiple times over during next 30 years.

Same will apply multiplied by quite a lot to the Mk5s, presumably!

 

[sp503]

The idea of GWR getting additional DMU stock is to replace both the HST and IET stock from regional services, the former for scrap and the latter going back to their old duties.

This will also allow some boosting of local formations elsewhere by the use of any 158 and 16x stock that could also be released by using the remainder of those additional DMUs.

The DfT are now deciding where rolling stock goes so the days of operators swooping for off lease stock has well and truly gone. The 379/377/387 cascade will be (is being) determined by the DfT and any reluctant operators involved will just be told to get on with it.

I hope I am overthinking, but this relationship between DfT who transformed itself from a referee into a tsar and the train leasing companies who are in effect stripped of all their leverages and bargaining powers with TOCs sound like a hotbed for corruption at worse, and gross inefficiency at best.

 

[Bikeman78]

The 175 musical chairs competition is coming to an end and GWR are likely to be the ones without a chair. There is really no other “quick” option for sorting out the passenger overcrowding issue and the HST replacement conundrum. The 158’s are not going to be available in time and Northern increasingly seem to be the eventually recipients of that fleet.

Basing the 175 fleet in the West (presumably LA) for that to happen also puts the 80x sets back onto boosting formations on services to London and allows most Cardiff-Portsmouth diagrams to go load 4 or 5 x 158, with 4 or 5 x 16x for the rest. I presume going 175 on services like the Barney would be part of this idea.

I strongly suspect that is the plan in the mind of MH but the question is will it work (do they have enough sets to do it) and, given it is going to add costs, will the DfT go for it?

As mentioned in post #20, I'd like to see the cost of this versus the cost of keeping the HSTs for another 18-24 months. Unlike the Scottish operation, the GWR sets were pretty good.

 

[Dan G]

The idea of GWR getting additional DMU stock is to replace both the HST and IET stock from regional services, the former for scrap and the latter going back to their old duties.

This will also allow some boosting of local formations elsewhere by the use of any 158 and 16x stock that could also be released by using the remainder of those additional DMUs.

The DfT are now deciding where rolling stock goes so the days of operators swooping for off lease stock has well and truly gone. The 379/377/387 cascade will be (is being) determined by the DfT and any reluctant operators involved will just be told to get on with it.

The only DMUs available are the 175s and the 769s, and the latter ain't going to replace HSTs or IETs lol.

I guess you meant "would" rather than "will" in your second paragraph? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

The 175 musical chairs competition is coming to an end and GWR are likely to be the ones without a chair. There is really no other “quick” option for sorting out the passenger overcrowding issue and the HST replacement conundrum. The 158’s are not going to be available in time and Northern increasingly seem to be the eventually recipients of that fleet.

Basing the 175 fleet in the West (presumably LA) for that to happen also puts the 80x sets back onto boosting formations on services to London and allows most Cardiff-Portsmouth diagrams to go load 4 or 5 x 158, with 4 or 5 x 16x for the rest. I presume going 175 on services like the Barney would be part of this idea.

I strongly suspect that is the plan in the mind of MH but the question is will it work (do they have enough sets to do it) and, given it is going to add costs, will the DfT go for it?

 

[Towers]

As mentioned in post #20, I'd like to see the cost of this versus the cost of keeping the HSTs for another 18-24 months. Unlike the Scottish operation, the GWR sets were pretty good.

GWR of course having the luxury of 40+ years of knowledge of how to look after them! I’ve no idea how many Castle sets are still potentially serviceable, be that sitting out of use on depot or in storage etc, and of course the lack of them is entirely the DfT’s doing. But if that was any sort of realistic option it would seem to be a rather obvious avenue to explore.

 

[Snow1964]

The only DMUs available are the 175s and the 769s, and the latter ain't going to replace HSTs or IETs lol.

I see this as a question of timescales that are required

175s could start staff training almost immediately, and if kept in small area, could be in service in couple of months, taking over number of service changes by summer timetable.

769s, fully liveried, but only really suitable for use on Gatwick services and some Thames valley branches. Risk over if will work properly, and another risk if unions will have a strop over 1980s stock. Realistically can't see many turbos being released to go west until Autumn or even December if this is chosen solution.

If west is not likely to see extra stock until Autumn, then can add the ex Avanti 221s as option (assuming some 805, 807 enter service in the summer). Could release some IETs that have replaced the Castle HSTs. A number of staff are already familiar with type as XC services use them in South West, but obviously others will need training.

If talking 10-15 months time, should be some 150s available from TfW. Devon and Cornwall are familiar with them. But bringing in trains that by then are 37-38 years old can only be seen as short term stopgap.

18 months time likely to be TfW 158s available. Easy to add more of a familiar type, but realistically can GWR wait that long, when crowding problem is now. Might be better option for 2025-2030 period, but I think these have to be seen as a phase 2, not a quick solution.

 

[Dan G]

Churchward might/should replace all the Sprinter stock from ~2030 so if GWR had some more 150s available to them, I wouldn't be surprised if they said "yes", just for six years or so.

If I were the Fat Controller I think I'd bring in the 769s on the North Down Line, as they should have been before whatever happened happened.

Worth noting that GWR are going to introduce 2tpd between Bristol and Oxford, so they'll need stock for that

 

[Snow1964]

Churchward might/should replace all the Sprinter stock from ~2030 so if GWR had some more 150s available to them, I wouldn't be surprised if they said "yes", just for six years or so.

If I were the Fat Controller I think I'd bring in the 769s on the North Down Line, as they should have been before whatever happened happened.

Worth noting that GWR are going to introduce 2tpd between Bristol and Oxford, so they'll need stock for that

It is interesting that a number of posts see Churchward as a plan for a future fleet, exact dates vary year or two, but 2028-2032 introduction seems to be expectation.

What does seem to be causing less clarity is how to bridge the gap for next 2 years, seem to be plenty of possible hand me downs for 2026-2031 period, but many of these easy solutions eg spare 158s are 20-25 months away.

I can see why everyone keeps coming back to 175s, simply because everything else is 6-25 months away.

So perhaps it is easier to work backwards and assume Churchward replaces stock 2030-31. Then work out what can be used in interim until then. That would mean :
175s would be 30 years old,
150s would be 43-44 years old,
158s would be 40-41 years old,
769s would be 40-44 years old,
165s would be 39-40 years old,
166s would be 38-39 years old,
Castle HSTs (if kept) would be 49-55 years old

and for completeness if any of following used in interim, by 2030-31
168s (ex Chiltern) would be 29-33 years old
221s would be 29-30 years old,
222s would be 26-28 years old
68s and mk5s a lowly 8-9 years old, younger than IETs and 387s

Sort of feels that depending on if you work forwards from what is available today, or backwards as to what can hang on in there until about 2030, either way debating which is least worst,n rather than ideal.

 

[anthony263]

I've read on another forum Hitachi have proposed a 4 carriage unit with diesel engines under two carriages and battery packs under the other two .

So probably something similar body wise to the class 385s.