GWR operating short 'HSTGTi' sets (see diagrams section for workings)

[Meerkat]

I'm interested to know why the DfT is potentially letting GWR have more converted HST's than XC? Probably because of the depot space.

What would they replace on XC within timetable and route limitations?

 

[Energy]

What would they replace on XC within timetable and route limitations?

Probably IETs.

 

[37424]

Well, I'm all for more converted HST's. I mentioned earlier that I counted the amount of seats in a 2-car GWR 158 and a 4-coach HST in my Guide to Services - 252 (2 x 4-formed 4-coach 158 and 305 in a Castle HST). 53 more seats per train sounds excellent!

I'm interested to know why the DfT is potentially letting GWR have more converted HST's than XC? Probably because of the depot space.

As much as I like the rather reliable old Class 150's, I bet GWR have had so much positive feedback from passengers on the short HST's saying these are much better than the trains previously on here (previous being the 150's).

I'm also interested to know why the DfT wants units on branch line routes - Class 158's were built for longer-distance express routes and are suited to the routes the Castle HST's are used on.

If you read what 'Clarence Yard' has said and I gather he is someone who knows what's going in GWR rather than just speculation, the possible extra Castle HST's are mainly to ensure they have enough capacity at the end of the year to get rid of the Railbuses.

A possible longer term plan to get rid of 150's and 158's appears to be based mainly on plans for 165/166's the merits of which might be debatable but are not relevant to this thread.

 

[Energy]

If you read what 'Clarence Yard' has said and I gather he is someone who knows what's going in GWR rather than just speculation, the possible extra Castle HST's are mainly to ensure they have enough capacity at the end of the year to get rid of the Railbuses.

A possible longer term plan to get rid of 150's and 158's appears to be based mainly on plans for 165/166's the merits of which might be debatable but are not relevant to this thread.

From my understanding of the DA, the extra Castles are pretty definite and the DfT want a plan for replacing the 150s and 158s in the long term.

 

[Jamesrob637]

If restrictions are eased and I get down to Plymouth this summer, will I notice a massive improvement in acceleration on these compared to a 158?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If restrictions are eased and I get down to Plymouth this summer, will I notice a massive improvement in acceleration on these compared to a 158?

I reckon so - 4 x 350hp means 1,400hp.

A 4-coach HST with 2 x 2,250hp engines gives excellent acceleration!

 

[Clarence Yard]

From my understanding of the DA, the extra Castles are pretty definite and the DfT want a plan for replacing the 150s and 158s in the long term.

Your understanding is a tiny bit off - DA3 doesn't have any extra HST sets committed. This scheme came up after the DA3 "bid" was submitted so is referred to in the new FA (as are the two extra sleeper cars) but the DfT is to decide this item as a post DA3 FA "Change". That process is well under way.

The plan is actually an options study for the entire diesel fleet (IET apart) and that will inform future DfT decisions.

 

[devonexpress]

From a personal viewpoint the HST's make sense for longer distance runs like they are currently on, If it gets rid of the 143s, that makes sense, the 150 fleet is all over the place because of the DFT's insistence on moving all our good units to Northern and send the worn out ones to the South West, so personally if 3 more HST's get converted and a few more 165/166 get freed up to allow the 158s to displace them i'd have no complaints. My only question would be can the 158's handle the tight corners of many Cornish branch lines in comparison to a 150?

I also wonder if it's actually that expensive to run a Castle HST, given that the maintenance is done in the same place as XC HST's, and Scotrail seem to send theirs down occasionally, meaning the cost of keeping engineering staff working no them must be covered, on train crews are interworkable anyway so apart from the set up training which was done 2 years ago that cost has gone. As far as i can see it only offers benefits, more space, more seats, if one coach is out of service, it can easily be replaced or if not there's enough room with the available coaches, so it's not like any diagrams will suffer. The only issue is they can't be beefed up for major events without losing an entire set to make one or two sets longer.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

From a personal viewpoint the HST's make sense for longer distance runs like they are currently on, If it gets rid of the 143s, that makes sense, the 150 fleet is all over the place because of the DFT's insistence on moving all our good units to Northern and send the worn out ones to the South West, so personally if 3 more HST's get converted and a few more 165/166 get freed up to allow the 158s to displace them i'd have no complaints. My only question would be can the 158's handle the tight corners of many Cornish branch lines in comparison to a 150?

I also wonder if it's actually that expensive to run a Castle HST, given that the maintenance is done in the same place as XC HST's, and Scotrail seem to send theirs down occasionally, meaning the cost of keeping engineering staff working no them must be covered, on train crews are interworkable anyway so apart from the set up training which was done 2 years ago that cost has gone. As far as i can see it only offers benefits, more space, more seats, if one coach is out of service, it can easily be replaced or if not there's enough room with the available coaches, so it's not like any diagrams will suffer. The only issue is they can't be beefed up for major events without losing an entire set to make one or two sets longer.

I believe GWR are retaining 10 Class 150/2's
according to the Modern Railways website. This should allow for withdrawal of the 143's easily.
Or yes, let more HST's displace 158's to displace Pacer's - Pacer's and 158's both have end doors.

Plus I'm guessing the 158's seem to keep to the timetable on the Barnstaple services as well as the Pacers.

 

[PHILIPE]

From a personal viewpoint the HST's make sense for longer distance runs like they are currently on, If it gets rid of the 143s, that makes sense, the 150 fleet is all over the place because of the DFT's insistence on moving all our good units to Northern and send the worn out ones to the South West, so personally if 3 more HST's get converted and a few more 165/166 get freed up to allow the 158s to displace them i'd have no complaints. My only question would be can the 158's handle the tight corners of many Cornish branch lines in comparison to a 150?

I also wonder if it's actually that expensive to run a Castle HST, given that the maintenance is done in the same place as XC HST's, and Scotrail seem to send theirs down occasionally, meaning the cost of keeping engineering staff working no them must be covered, on train crews are interworkable anyway so apart from the set up training which was done 2 years ago that cost has gone. As far as i can see it only offers benefits, more space, more seats, if one coach is out of service, it can easily be replaced or if not there's enough room with the available coaches, so it's not like any diagrams will suffer. The only issue is they can't be beefed up for major events without losing an entire set to make one or two sets longer.

158s are cleared and have worked recently to Falmouth and St. Ives. They have now been cleared for Newquay also but not to Looe and Gunnislake.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I believe GWR are retaining 10 Class 150/2's
according to the Modern Railways website. This should allow for withdrawal of the 143's easily.
Or yes, let more HST's displace 158's to displace Pacer's - Pacer's and 158's both have end doors.

Plus I'm guessing the 158's seem to keep to the timetable on the Barnstaple services as well as the Pacers.

Just to be clear, GWR are retaining the 10 cl.150/2 units that would have gone if the extra services hadn't been authorized. They would have retained the other 10 for the Cornish branches so the total amount of cl.150/2 units they are leasing throughout DA3 is the existing 20.

The cl.158 clearance has been done with one eye on a possible future scenario and the other eye on flexibility as since the cl.150 units have come off most of the Cornish main line workings, it may be easier on occasions to sub with a cl.158, if a cl.150 isn't available or has failed.

 

[Railperf]

I reckon so - 4 x 350hp means 1,400hp.

A 4-coach HST with 2 x 2,250hp engines gives excellent acceleration!

Double the power acceleration wise - HST 2+4 offers apps 13.1hp/t at the rail versus 7.4 hp/t for a Class 158 (350hp version). Does not halve journey times though! Saves around 40 seconds to 1 minute on each station to station section - based on comparing 2+4 with Class 158 on the Aberdeen to Dundee section of line.
The Railway Performance Society carried out a detailed study and analysis of the Edinburgh to Aberdeen and Glasgow to Aberdeen route back in September 2019. Not too may HST's around that day, mainly 170's and the odd 158.

 

[MML]

Is there any merit in increasing the 2+4 HSTgti to 2+5 like Scotrail intend to do ?
The reason such units are relatively expensive to operate must be because the cost is covered by only 4 coaches worth of passengers as opposed to 8 as was originally intended. So spreading the cost across 5 coaches should reduce the cost per seat, assuming you can fill them ?
Are there reasons 5 coaches couldn't physically be used ? Platform length, signalling restrictions ? Or would they become too slow for the proposed timetable ?

 

[JonathanH]

The reason such units are relatively expensive to operate must be because the cost is covered by only 4 coaches worth of passengers as opposed to 8 as was originally intended. So spreading the cost across 5 coaches should reduce the cost per seat, assuming you can fill them ?

Your logic only works if you think that more people would pay to travel if the trains had 5 coaches rather than 4. Presumably the current and future demand has been identified as not requiring any more than 4 coaches.

 

[Envoy]

Is there any merit in increasing the 2+4 HSTgti to 2+5 like Scotrail intend to do ?
The reason such units are relatively expensive to operate must be because the cost is covered by only 4 coaches worth of passengers as opposed to 8 as was originally intended. So spreading the cost across 5 coaches should reduce the cost per seat, assuming you can fill them ?
Are there reasons 5 coaches couldn't physically be used ? Platform length, signalling restrictions ? Or would they become too slow for the proposed timetable ?

They probably could fill them if they cut the prices - and still make more money. For example, a peak weekday return from Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads = £19.50. A peak weekday return from Cardiff to Swansea (similar distance) = £12.50. So, many people would choose to drive between Cardiff & Bristol - despite the possible queues for the blasted tunnel at Newport - which the Welsh Government refuse to by-pass with a new M4 to the south. Going further down to the south-west again sees very high fares per mile travelled. GWR could undercut the high Cross Country fares for these slower stopping services and fill these HST’s. (A pay on the day return from Cardiff to Plymouth can for example, be reduced by 42% by splits at Bristol Parkway & Taunton).

 

[Brissle Girl]

They probably could fill them if they cut the prices - and still make more money. For example, a peak weekday return from Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads = £19.50. A peak weekday return from Cardiff to Swansea (similar distance) = £12.50. So, many people would choose to drive between Cardiff & Bristol - despite the possible queues for the blasted tunnel at Newport - which the Welsh Government refuse to by-pass with a new M4 to the south. Going further down to the south-west again sees very high fares per mile travelled. GWR could undercut the high Cross Country fares for these slower stopping services and fill these HST’s. (A pay on the day return from Cardiff to Plymouth can for example, be reduced by 42% by splits at Bristol Parkway & Taunton).

You’d need a 56% increase in passengers to recover the lost revenue if you cut the price that amount, and that would mean at least an extra two carriages. As I understand it peak trains are pretty full to start with between Cardiff and Bristol. Most people will Take the train if it is convenient at both ends to them, and if not the inconvenience of getting to/from the station at either end is going to outweigh any reduction in fare.

Off peak 4 car sets have plenty of capacity on the Cardiff to Taunton services, and I suspect similarly in the south west, so any flexing of fares could be useful to utilise that capacity, but not to require an increase.

We’re already delighted with our HSTs running local services, and a couple more would be an added bonus. Let’s not get carried away dreaming up reasons to make them even more expensive to operate, as that will only speed up the day when they get replaced by units once again.

 

[Energy]

For example, a peak weekday return from Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads = £19.50

Not a bad price IMO, for a return.

A peak weekday return from Cardiff to Swansea (similar distance) = £12.50

The Cardiff to Swansea train is an intercity train from London, not a local one. It will have more people.

 

[irish_rail]

The GTIs in Cornwall have never been well filled with 4 coaches so 5 would make no sense.
I can however see merit in some kind of rival to XC with say a decent Plymouth to Bristol and Cardiff service that doesn't take forever but with a competitive journey time.

 

[Energy]

The GTIs in Cornwall have never been well filled with 4 coaches so 5 would make no sense.
I can however see merit in some kind of rival to XC with say a decent Plymouth to Bristol and Cardiff service that doesn't take forever but with a competitive journey time.

Maybe, it is going to be hard to be price competitive as the GTIs aren't known to be fuel efficient although with fuel prices being so low that may not matter at the moment. For now I think GWR should focus on replacing the pacers.

 

[Dai Corner]

Not a bad price IMO, for a return.

The Cardiff to Swansea train is an intercity train from London, not a local one. It will have more people.

The Cardiff-Bristol Parkway fare is the same as the Temple Meads one and the journey is on an intercity train to London. The difference in £/mile is more to do with GWR setting the Bristol fare and TfW setting the Swansea one I think.

 

[Envoy]

Not a bad price IMO, for a return.

The Cardiff to Swansea train is an intercity train from London, not a local one. It will have more people.

Travel between Cardiff & Swansea can be via a GWR InterCity train or TfW express train - usually a 175 or by a local stopping train. Given a choice, I am sure that most people would choose the longer GWR train as the TfW ones can get pretty rammed - especially as those people travelling west of Swansea need to be on them. (On weekdays, only one GWR IET travels west of Swansea).

Regarding your first point:> But a price that is high enough to induce people to drive. When people get electric cars, the rail fare will be even more uncompetitive. In the short term, I can see many people not returning to rail travel for fear of catching the virus from fellow passengers. (Far better to be isolated in a car). Some organisations might have found that their employees can work just as effectively from home - so, we may well see a reduction in commuters.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that any discussion on the potential impact of Covid 19 on rail operations belongs in the Covid 19 section please:

Covid-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

Temporary forum for discussion of all matters related to the current Covid-19 pandemic. Threads posted here may relate to both railway and non-railway matters.

www.railforums.co.uk

And any suggestions / ideas should be posted in the following section:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/forums/speculative-ideas.172/

Thanks

 

[Railperf]

Now that all the sets have been delivered, what is the planned service pattern - frequency. There seems to be two main diagrams. penzance to Plymouth and Newton Abbot, and Cardiff to Taunton. Certainly the Cardiff to Taunton was run by a mix of stock. IS it planned to join this up and run Cardiff to penzance at some point?

 

[47827]

Now that all the sets have been delivered, what is the planned service pattern - frequency. There seems to be two main diagrams. penzance to Plymouth and Newton Abbot, and Cardiff to Taunton. Certainly the Cardiff to Taunton was run by a mix of stock. IS it planned to join this up and run Cardiff to penzance at some point?

Probably back to a similar set of diagrams as the winter when eventually public transport returns to normsl, say by the end of the year or sooner if we are lucky.

I think it was about 8 or 9 diagrams after the slam door sets finished. Think there was a small reduction in turns that just shuttled about in Cornwall or Cardiff to Taunton after the December timetable rejig which saw more through Cardiff to Plymouth and Penzance services than previously, some of which could tie up a hst for much of the day. I'm sure there may be an odd extra turn if all the sets are available with a few less at weekends but not much as I think they were only waiting on a couple by the end of the year when the last few slam door ones went. Obviously if they want another 3 sets then if that now happens you would see less units in Cornwall and on through trains to Bristol and Cardiff presumably which is an improvement in South West based XC journey capacity should it be required.

 

[devonexpress]

Out of interest how many of these 3 new sets will actually be for active service, how many will be just for standby or to keep continuity of service.
It's certainly good that the Pacer's are going and that GWR will be getting a slightly more consistent fleet, I wonder if the Chiltern 165's might join GWR in the future? However, I think we can say with some certainty that the 150's are nearing the end of GWR at some point in the next 5-10 years, they will soon be the slowest units on the network and some of the oldest.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Out of interest how many of these 3 new sets will actually be for active service, how many will be just for standby or to keep continuity of service.

There's absolutely no confirmation of any at the moment, or even an indication of how many there might be, other than it is likely to be a low number. It's only gone as far as DfT asking GWR for proposals (per Modern Railways).

 

[83G/84D]

158s are cleared and have worked recently to Falmouth and St. Ives. They have now been cleared for Newquay also but not to Looe and Gunnislake.

I was wondering where the information you posted about 158's being passed to Newquay has come from please?

 

[PHILIPE]

I was wondering where the information you posted about 158's being passed to Newquay has come from please?

I've waded through this and also the WNXX Thread to be able to quote the source but without success. It was about the time that 158s started showing up on the Falmouth and St.Ives Branches and a post followed stating that Newquay would be cleared from such and such a date the following week following completion of paperwork.

 

[83G/84D]

I have been speaking to some work colleagues and no-one has any knowledge of this so I wonder if it has been done. I'll make some further enquiries.

 

[PHILIPE]

I have been speaking to some work colleagues and no-one has any knowledge of this so I wonder if it has been done. I'll make some further enquiries.

Unless it was Facebook I saw it on but I would never have taken that for gospel from that source..