Should GWR order class 195 CAF Civities to replace its DMUs (bar the 165/166)?

[ABB125]

Personally I don't think any new trains need to be ordered just yet; in the next few years around 50 class 158s from TfW and EMR will become available, as well as 17(?) class 156s from EMR (plus a load of class 153s from both operators, but I'm not sure whether they'd be much use). Some of these could go to GWR (158s) and the rest to Northern.
Then think about a new order in a decade or so when (hopefully!) there is more electrification and various stock cascades could be carried out in the most effective way.

 

[BrutalLegend]

at least ordering everything from the same family at roughly the same stage of technology would help logistics I'd imagine, even if the insides & bodyshells are dissimilar

Agreed, I meant more a common family / platform than buying one identical train. For example AT100s and AT200s.

 

[Meerkat]

158s with end doors aren’t suitable for the metro and crowded branch services.
Send them to the North to do the longer routes and let the South West have the 195s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

158s with end doors aren’t suitable for the metro and crowded branch services.
Send them to the North to do the longer routes and let the South West have the 195s.

Northern has plenty of routes that would be perfectly suited for the 195s. They just don't use them on those routes.

 

[Speed43125]

158s with end doors aren’t suitable for the metro and crowded branch services.
Send them to the North to do the longer routes and let the South West have the 195s.

Northern have a similar problem with their 158s, they've cascaded them off the express services and on to local stopping trains where the door lay-out is rather troublesome at peak times.

 

[RailWonderer]

Northern has plenty of routes that would be perfectly suited for the 195s. They just don't use them on those routes.

It’s the age old habit of fleet allocators to generally use newer trains on the longer services and the oldest on the shortest.

 

[Neptune]

It’s the age old habit of fleet allocators to generally use newer trains on the longer services and the oldest on the shortest.

195‘s are ideal for local stoppers with their good acceleration and wide open doorways and 158’s for longer distance routes but the 195’s are the headline trains so they’re put on the headline routes that they are unsuitable for (Such as Leeds - Nottingham).

 

[Grecian 1998]

158s with end doors aren’t suitable for the metro and crowded branch services.
Send them to the North to do the longer routes and let the South West have the 195s.

AIUI the intention is for 158s to primarily run services on the mainline between Cardiff / Worcester - Bristol - Exeter - Penzance (although most obviously don't run end to end). They do run branch line services from Exeter - Barnstaple, but 90% of people travel end to end - the interim stations are sparsely used so end doors rarely cause delays.

They certainly aren't suitable for lines such as Exmouth-Paignton, Truro - Falmouth or the Severn Beach in the past which have significant turnover at numerous stations en route, but then that's why GWR use 150s and 165s/166s on those routes.

 

[DB]

Indeed. If only they'd swap the aircon out, the Inverness 158s with the Grammer IC3000s are about the nicest rolling stock in the UK.

The Wales 158s are very similar (same seats). EMR ones also similar although I think fewer tables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Wales 158s are very similar (same seats). EMR ones also similar although I think fewer tables.

Swings and roundabouts...the layout of the Welsh ones I think has less legroom, though the interior scheme is quite pleasant and it has the small-headrest version of the Grammer IC3000 which makes it a bit less claustrophobic with the very high seat backs. The EMR ones far fewer tables and quite tight legroom (though for good reason on the routes they run). But anything fitted with Grammer's finest has to be good

 

[Anonymous10]

Personally for gwr to replace the Pacers and 15x units they would need a commuter train such as a 195 although 196 is preferable and a second regional express/ inter city train for the Cardiff to Penzance service which would ideally replace the 158s and the hsts. Although I am of the opinion the 158s are fine for now I do understand the need to get their replacements planned but they can't be the same as the regional commuter routes

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally for gwr to replace the Pacers and 15x units they would need a commuter train such as a 195 although 196 is preferable and a second regional express/ inter city train for the Cardiff to Penzance service which would ideally replace the 158s and the hsts. Although I am of the opinion the 158s are fine for now I do understand the need to get their replacements planned but they can't be the same as the regional commuter routes

I'm not sure why not unless you're fixated with doors. The Class 170 is a perfectly competent regional express unit with doors at thirds (well, it's more like 1/4 and 3/4). What matters more is how you fit out the interior. Like the 350/1 vs. /2, or the two Aventra interiors WMT have on order, there's really no reason the same unit couldn't be used for both purposes but with a different seating layout.

 

[Anonymous10]

I'm not sure why not unless you're fixated with doors. The Class 170 is a perfectly competent regional express unit with doors at thirds (well, it's more like 1/4 and 3/4). What matters more is how you fit out the interior. Like the 350/1 vs. /2, or the two Aventra interiors WMT have on order, there's really no reason the same unit couldn't be used for both purposes but with a different seating layout.

Personally I prefer the fit out of doors at end and luggage racks with areas for bikes so my ideal lay our for a replacement would be a 158/175 lay out they keep the large luggage on racks by the doors and bikes in out the way of people in the main carriages yes a commuter unit could do it again but personally I wouldn't like it very much as it just don't feel the same

 

[Mintona]

Don’t really see the point in ordering bi-modes for services that are 100 miles from the nearest overhead wires. If electrification can’t reach Bristol and Oxford, it’s certainly not going to reach Gunnislake and Looe.

In the long term, the Cardiff - Portsmouth and Penzance services would be ideal for a five car IET style train, but without the 125 top speed. Well, would’ve been, but if passenger numbers don’t pick up again at some point they’ll probably be alright with a two car 150.

 

[BayPaul]

In the medium term I think that the GWR branches are ideal for fast-charging battery trains similar to the solutions proposed by Vivarail. A trickle charging battery at the terminus(es) that can recharge the train within 5 minutes, and a train designed to be maintained on site by a man with a van. Better acceleration with an electric train should give enough time for a slight lengthening of the turnaround.

As the branches are all fairly short, the battery size should be feasible, and the self-contained nature seems ideal for using this kind of tech to decarbonise, as there is no likelihood of electrifying. If the range isn't great enough to get them back to the depot for major maintenance, then you could potentially have a portable generator that you could load in and use for ECS moves, or use a loco.

One big plus for this on gwr is that it wouldn't be too small a microfleet - Looe, Falmouth, St Ives and the Thames Valley branches are all ideal, and depending on battery size, Barnstaple, Exmouth - Paignton, Newquay and Gunnislake as well.

Either newbuild, D train or something like a 466 conversion would seem ideal. Once these branches are taken away, there are probably ample 16x,768 and 158s to run the longer services for many years to come, hopefully with electrification making their replacements worth being bimode

 

[Wolfie]

As I understand the 143s (GWR have no 142s now) aren't really getting used much and will be replaced by cascades when the 769s enter service

I wouldn't bother getting a small fleet of trains just to replace the 150s, 158s are getting released from TfW and EMR soon so they will be available. I would rather not order new diesel trains instead electrifying elsewhere to get existing diesel trains. Electrifying Chiltern would make 165s available.

168s (which for all intents and purposes are 170s), and l believe a few 172s, too. A sensible approach in my view.

If units were to be ordered to replace the 150s I would suggest that it should be primarily an order for Northern, who operate hundreds of 150s, with a few extra tagged on for GW.

My bold
More than a little exaggeration given that a grand total of 137 Class 150s were produced. In my view no new DMUs should be procured, as Energy posted, as diesel will become increasingly unacceptable as a fuel. Northern is already an economic basket case too without even more new, presumably more expensive, units. Presumably the refurbishment (I'm not going to express views on the quality) undertaken is intended to keep existing class 150 units in service for several more years.

Yes. All 350s, 450s and 444s have that seat too, as well as the 185. It's not the IC3000, but as a regional seat it's excellent (and I've done all the way from Liverpool to Bletchley in one without discomfort, well over 4 hours). You never hear any complaints about them on the WCML other than the filthy upholstery.

I have had spinal issues and my back really, really does not like the seats in the 350/2 - 3+2....

 

[Anonymous10]

As I understand the 143s (GWR have no 142s now) aren't really getting used much and will be replaced by cascades when the 769s enter service

I wouldn't bother getting a small fleet of trains just to replace the 150s, 158s are getting released from TfW and EMR soon so they will be available. I would rather not order new diesel trains instead electrifying elsewhere to get existing diesel trains. Electrifying Chiltern would make 165s available.

Also be 153s to prm spec so could always double them up and use on branches

 

[Irascible]

In the medium term I think that the GWR branches are ideal for fast-charging battery trains similar to the solutions proposed by Vivarail. A trickle charging battery at the terminus(es) that can recharge the train within 5 minutes, and a train designed to be maintained on site by a man with a van. Better acceleration with an electric train should give enough time for a slight lengthening of the turnaround.

As the branches are all fairly short, the battery size should be feasible, and the self-contained nature seems ideal for using this kind of tech to decarbonise, as there is no likelihood of electrifying. If the range isn't great enough to get them back to the depot for major maintenance, then you could potentially have a portable generator that you could load in and use for ECS moves, or use a loco.

One big plus for this on gwr is that it wouldn't be too small a microfleet - Looe, Falmouth, St Ives and the Thames Valley branches are all ideal, and depending on battery size, Barnstaple, Exmouth - Paignton, Newquay and Gunnislake as well.

Either newbuild, D train or something like a 466 conversion would seem ideal. Once these branches are taken away, there are probably ample 16x,768 and 158s to run the longer services for many years to come, hopefully with electrification making their replacements worth being bimode

Barnstaple is an hour each way, but it's admittedly fairly flat. Exmouth-Paignton, is that really operationally practical? That is a fair old way with all the stops. There will also possibly be Portishead as well as Avonmouth, and I'm going to suggest maybe locals to Axminster ( at furthest ) from Exeter at some point which would make a little more sense rolled into Exeter Metro services rather than have the WoE line operator do it.

I'm going to suggest hybrid of some nature rather than either rolled out as bimode or pure battery-electric - you get all the benefit of energy harvesting but you also get a lot of flexibility, especially given how rationalised some of these lines have got & how long some of them are and how historically stock seems to end up on all sorts of main-line secondary services at times too. Still, this stuff is going to be out the doors at the other end of the decade minimum, let's see what technology ( and society ) brings us. Maybe by then there'll be modular swappable power raft systems that operators are actually prepared to use.

Doesn't matter where doors are, just as long as the seating plan suits the trip.

 

[BayPaul]

Barnstaple is an hour each way, but it's admittedly fairly flat. Exmouth-Paignton, is that really operationally practical? That is a fair old way with all the stops. There will also possibly be Portishead as well as Avonmouth, and I'm going to suggest maybe locals to Axminster ( at furthest ) from Exeter at some point which would make a little more sense rolled into Exeter Metro services rather than have the WoE line operator do it.

I'm going to suggest hybrid of some nature rather than either rolled out as bimode or pure battery-electric - you get all the benefit of energy harvesting but you also get a lot of flexibility, especially given how rationalised some of these lines have got & how long some of them are and how historically stock seems to end up on all sorts of main-line secondary services at times too. Still, this stuff is going to be out the doors at the other end of the decade minimum, let's see what technology ( and society ) brings us. Maybe by then there'll be modular swappable power raft systems that operators are actually prepared to use.

Doesn't matter where doors are, just as long as the seating plan suits the trip.

That is why I put these longer routes down as possibles rather than 1st priorities. I think the idea of a simple battery only train for short branches could work well, and be fairly cheap. At the point you start making it hybrid so it can cover more routes, it starts becoming more expensive. The possible advantage of Paignton-Exmouth is that there are 3 obvious charging points (Paignton, Exmouth and St Davids) which might make it achievable, though I agree it is a long route, though quite flat. I agree with Axminster being sensible, as well as Avonmouth and Portishead, though I think there is some interworking with the latter two, that might make it impractical for pure battery.

 

[Meerkat]

How does the short range battery train get back to the depot?

 

[SussexLad]

How does the short range battery train get back to the depot?

It doesn't, lol.

In my mind, youd need one of three things: a small depot at each branch line or to cover multiple lines in a small area, a loco to bring a few of them back to the depot or an awful lot of charging points. Probably why they haven't bothered yet.

 

[Neptune]

I'm going to suggest maybe locals to Axminster ( at furthest ) from Exeter at some point which would make a little more sense rolled into Exeter Metro services rather than have the WoE line operator do it.

GWR have plans to extend the Barnstaple to St James Park service to Axminster according to Modern Railways. Makes sense rather than an additional service.

 

[BayPaul]

It doesn't, lol.

In my mind, youd need one of three things: a small depot at each branch line or to cover multiple lines in a small area, a loco to bring a few of them back to the depot or an awful lot of charging points. Probably why they haven't bothered yet.

For Thames Valley branches, on Electric. For Cornwall branches, as per my original post, I would suggest that they should be designed so that most overnight maintenance could be done with a man with van. For Cornish Branches, for their trips every week or so to Plymouth, ideally you would want to have enough range to bunny-hop between existing charge points - Plymouth - Liskeard - Par - Truro - St Erth. It would be necessary to add additional charging points off the existing battery onto the mainline platforms, and pathing could be 'interesting'!

 

[Grecian 1998]

Also be 153s to prm spec so could always double them up and use on branches

GWR have sent all their 153s to Northern, preferring to keep their 150/2s for local services. I doubt they'd want them back.

GWR have plans to extend the Barnstaple to St James Park service to Axminster according to Modern Railways. Makes sense rather than an additional service.

Barnstaple - Axminster won't happen until and unless there's a loop put in at Whimple - insufficient capacity currently.

 

[Anonymous10]

GWR have sent all their 153s to Northern, preferring to keep their 150/2s for local services. I doubt they'd want them back

I believe they were transferred to tfw to bolster their capacity and largely disposed of due to prm if nothing else paired up they would be useful on branch lines till new stock can be found as they have nice interiors and fully compliant now

 

[Neptune]

GWR have sent all their 153s to Northern, preferring to keep their 150/2s for local services. I doubt they'd want them back.

Northern only took 5 GWR 153's temporarily before they all went to Scotland to be converted into the bike units.

TfW and EMR took the balance between them.

 

[swt_passenger]

[…]
Barnstaple - Axminster won't happen until and unless there's a loop put in at Whimple - insufficient capacity currently.

They can still get to Honiton more often though? Maybe peak periods only, but wasn’t there a route study that explained what was possible on existing infrastructure?

 

[Clarence Yard]

For Thames Valley branches, on Electric. For Cornwall branches, as per my original post, I would suggest that they should be designed so that most overnight maintenance could be done with a man with van. For Cornish Branches, for their trips every week or so to Plymouth, ideally you would want to have enough range to bunny-hop between existing charge points - Plymouth - Liskeard - Par - Truro - St Erth. It would be necessary to add additional charging points off the existing battery onto the mainline platforms, and pathing could be 'interesting'!

You need them to go back to a depot for toilet emptying every day or two - doing that task remotely is not now permissible, nor is not providing toilets on existing services which have them now. The pure battery solution for the branch lines has been closely looked at by FG and found wanting - the turnrounds on key lines (such as the St Ives) can be under 5 minutes at both ends so fast charging is out. Several branch line units also work mainline turns so you don't want to have more fleet to cover existing work or to have to install more charging points.

The additional cost of driver training is also an issue - most branch lines see several drivers a day (for safety reasons) so D trains are definitely out on that ground alone (and for other reasons as well - top speed, seat capacity and political acceptablility) but something 2 or 3 car based on a 465/466 platform may very well be a runner, especially as if it has a HyDrive like self charging capability. GWR, as well as others, could use quite a few of those and that could be a real opportunity for Vivarail if they got their skates on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You need them to go back to a depot for toilet emptying every day or two - doing that task remotely is not now permissible, nor is not providing toilets on existing services which have them now.

Is that actually a rule? If so, where is it written? Can it not be mitigated by e.g. station facility provision?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Is that actually a rule? If so, where is it written? Can it not be mitigated by e.g. station facility provision?

It's something that the DfT always look for, as part of DDA. I suppose you could mitigate by introducing station facilities but nobody wants that cost.