GWR 80x 5-car - should they be replaced?

[Bletchleyite]

From an off-hand comment of mine on another thread...I suggest GWR's 5-cars are a nuisance now 9s are going to the Westcountry, and that they should go to XC in favour of new 9-cars (and maybe a few 7-cars) being ordered. Alternatively ScotRail might be interested, or some could be sent west to replace the short HSTs and make Cornwall an all-80x operation other than the branches.

The last thing XC needs is more 5-car trains!

A 5-car 80x is 15m longer than a 5-car Voyager and has a far more efficient layout, so would bring a considerable capacity increase. You could also gain a bit by reducing the kitchen size (window blanks are there to enable it) and making 1st only the end vehicle, as per TPE.

A TPE 802 has:

• 802/2: 342 seats
• (24 first class, 318 standard)

An XC 5-car Voyager has 26 First and just 236 Standard (total 262). That's like adding another coach and a bit - and that's with more legroom and better luggage space too!

The 5-cars on GWR are about the right length for the Cheltenham services FWIW (and are rather satisfyingly a perfect fit for the newly extended platform at Stonehouse, not that this is a reason to keep them necessarily)

I suppose you might want to keep a small subset for the services via Oxford, though you do see 9s on those a lot too.

 

[bramling]

From an off-hand comment of mine on another thread...I suggest GWR's 5-cars are a nuisance now 9s are going to the Westcountry, and that they should go to XC in favour of new 9-cars (and maybe a few 7-cars) being ordered. Alternatively ScotRail might be interested, or some could be sent west to replace the short HSTs and make Cornwall an all-80x operation other than the branches.



A 5-car 80x is 15m longer than a 5-car Voyager and has a far more efficient layout, so would bring a considerable capacity increase. You could also gain a bit by reducing the kitchen size (window blanks are there to enable it) and making 1st only the end vehicle, as per TPE.

A TPE 802 has:

• 802/2: 342 seats
• (24 first class, 318 standard)

An XC 5-car Voyager has 26 First and just 236 Standard (total 262). That's like adding another coach and a bit - and that's with more legroom and better luggage space too!



I suppose you might want to keep a small subset for the services via Oxford, though you do see 9s on those a lot too.

I’ve always thought the 5-car IEPs are a mistake, both on GWR and LNER.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve always thought the 5-car IEPs are a mistake, both on GWR and LNER.

Agreed. Another option would be to build more vehicles and extend them all to either 7 or 9.

It would be quite nice to have a dedicated Westcountry fleet for the longer journey with better quality, better-spaced seats aligned to the windows, and perhaps stuff like a family coach and buffet.

It's so rare to see a single 5 on anything other than Oxford that they just seem a nuisance, requiring more staff and inconvenient for passengers.

 

[irish_rail]

I completely agree with you on this. The 5 car 802s are an utter waste on the whole, fine for Bedwyn, some Oxfords but on the whole very wasteful, especially when running as pairs.

Either a cascade to XC, or ad has been rumoured to replace 2x4 HSTs with a new build of 9 car sets to replace them for core GWR intercity services would be great and in my view would save a lot of money in the long term, particularly in staffing costs.

 

[bramling]

I completely agree with you on this. The 5 car 802s are an utter waste on the whole, fine for Bedwyn, some Oxfords but on the whole very wasteful, especially when running as pairs.

Either a cascade to XC, or ad has been rumoured to replace 2x4 HSTs with a new build of 9 car sets to replace them for core GWR intercity services would be great and in my view would save a lot of money in the long term, particularly in staffing costs.

They are a little over specified for the West Country HST workings though. 158s would be quite suitable for those workings. Not so many years ago it was common to find 150/1s on those services!

ISTR infrastructure changes at Penzance would be required for regular 9-car working?

 

[Bletchleyite]

ISTR infrastructure changes at Penzance would be required for regular 9-car working?

9-cars and 10-cars are already being used on many if not most services to Penzance. The "split at Plymouth" thing seems to have (rightly*) died a death.

* It was a nice idea, but demand is such that 5 are insufficient at most times.

 

[BJames]

I agree also. Never understood this one and when we had a 5 car to Plymouth in the summer, it was absolute mayhem onboard. I fully support the need for fixed 9 car permanently (and at this point XC just needs something better than what they have so that's as good a place as any to start!)

This is why I'm worried about EMR's spec too - they've ordered 5 car for their Class 810 Aurora fleet and said they will "mainly run in multiple" so why go down this route in the first place? Some 9 or 10 car at the very least would be sensible...

 

[bramling]

9-cars and 10-cars are already being used on many if not most services to Penzance. The "split at Plymouth" thing seems to have (rightly*) died a death.

* It was a nice idea, but demand is such that 5 are insufficient at most times.

Just had a very quick look at RTTT for today.

Looks like four London trains stable at Penzance. Today shows 2x 5-car and 2x 9-car. I seem to remember there is an issue accommodating 9-cars at Long Rock. Obviously in theory units could put stable in the platforms, but at the expense of being able to be maintained, which may well be a problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is why I'm worried about EMR's spec too - they've ordered 5 car for their Class 810 Aurora fleet and said they will "mainly run in multiple" so why go down this route in the first place? Some 9 or 10 car at the very least would be sensible...

I agree that was a bad choice.

 

[Horizon22]

The issue is 9-cars are a bit too long for certain services. For instance Bedwyn doesn't really need (and can't fit) a 9-car and since electrification hasn't got there yet, you'd have to otherwise serve it with Turbos (currently happening due to the IET shortage and the locals are not at all happy). Another one that doesn't need 9-cars is Cheltenham/Gloucester. Worcester/Hereford services probably don't need 9-cars either, although Oxford is a pretty heavy flow so I could see it been worthwhile as many people empty out there.

All other routes yes, 9-cars round the clock is certainly feasible. However, there was certainly an issue with stabling capacity at Long Rock that could never be resolved (@Clarence Yard knows more of the details) which is why the split at Plymouth became a thing, although I think some creative diagramming has got around it. 10-cars also require additional resource to have a safety competent lead host in ther front 5.

5-cars do offer flexibility to build up to 10s which would be lost, although whether that outweighs the overall benefit is probably unlikely. Might have been better to keep the 5-cars as a micro fleet and ensure they don't interwork unless in times of some sort of disruption.

Most people on here complain about Plymouth / Penzance and whilst yet it is a the key flow / flagship route, it is not the only place GWR serves!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

5 cars are the right size for both North Cotswold (Oxford-Worcester-Hereford) and South Cotswold (Swindon-Gloucester) services.

There is absolutely no need to waste space on a kitchen for these journeys, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

5 cars are the right size for both North Cotswold (Oxford-Worcester-Hereford) and South Cotswold (Swindon-Gloucester) services.

There is absolutely no need to waste space on a kitchen for these journeys, though.

So we could I suppose keep a subfleet of them for those services with the kitchen removed and replaced with seating, with these sets only being used on other services if the only other option is a cancellation and there's one spare. There are window "blanks" for that purpose.

How many would be needed for the Cotswold services, plus Bedwyn, plus replacing the HSTs? How many would that leave?

 

[JohnRegular]

With staff costs being among the most significant costs for the railway, and staff shortages often to blame for cancellations, it seems absurd that quite so many services are 2x5 car rather than 9 car (though as others have mentioned, 5 car units do have their niche). Anyone who has travelled on a 2x5 with one unit locked out due to lack of staff will be familiar with the problems this causes.

For similar reasons, I think the medium-term future for the voyagers will be reformation into longer units with scrapping of some end vehicles.

 

[RailWonderer]

Agreed. Another option would be to build more vehicles and extend them all to either 7 or 9.

It would be quite nice to have a dedicated Westcountry fleet for the longer journey with better quality, better-spaced seats aligned to the windows, and perhaps stuff like a family coach and buffet.

It's so rare to see a single 5 on anything other than Oxford that they just seem a nuisance, requiring more staff and inconvenient for passengers.

Most Cheltenhams are 5 car, as is the 09:37 Paignton and the Bedwyns. The big thing was, and still is fleet standardisation. Those routes I just mentioned mostly do not justify a full length 9 car IET yet the DfT were not about to order another type of regional DMU in a small batch for those routes either, and cascading from another operator wouldn't have been on the table either, especially with the DMU shortage. They wanted to use the Turbos to replace 150s to get rid of all the Pacers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most Cheltenhams are 5 car, as is the 09:37 Paignton and the Bedwyns. The big thing was, and still is fleet standardisation. Those routes I just mentioned mostly do not justify a full length 9 car IET yet the DfT were not about to order another type of regional DMU in a small batch for those routes either, and cascading from another operator wouldn't have been on the table either, especially with the DMU shortage. They wanted to use the Turbos to replace 150s to get rid of all the Pacers.

So the answer is "keep enough 5s that the services that genuinely suit 5 can use one, but remove 10-car working, replacing it with more 9s"?

How many 5s does that require, and if we use them to replace the HSTs how many does that leave spare?

 

[Horizon22]

So the answer is "keep enough 5s that the services that genuinely suit 5 can use one, but remove 10-car working, replacing it with more 9s"?

How many 5s does that require, and if we use them to replace the HSTs how many does that leave spare?

Back of a fag packet stuff would suggest maybe 15-20. Don't forget there are 800s and 802s under different contracts.

 

[irish_rail]

The trouble is GWR have (i think), an enormous 58 x 5 car sets! As others have pointed out, maybe 20 or so are needed for the Bedwyn, some Oxfords and some Cheltenhams.

So keep 20 or so 5 car sets (for argument sake the 22 x 5 car 802s) and then lose the 36 5 car 800s to say XC and replace with say 20 new 9 car sets. I'm sure someone could do the calculations better than I could on numbers of sets that would be needed.

 

[Wolfie]

The trouble is GWR have (i think), an enormous 58 x 5 car sets! As others have pointed out, maybe 20 or so are needed for the Bedwyn, some Oxfords and some Cheltenhams.

So keep 20 or so 5 car sets (for argument sake the 22 x 5 car 802s) and then lose the 36 5 car 800s to say XC and replace with say 20 new 9 car sets. I'm sure someone could do the calculations better than I could on numbers of sets that would be needed.

Not so simple due to the way that they were procured.

 

[RailWonderer]

So the answer is "keep enough 5s that the services that genuinely suit 5 can use one, but remove 10-car working, replacing it with more 9s"?

How many 5s does that require, and if we use them to replace the HSTs how many does that leave spare?

Small chance of GWR being given anything new to operate. They have IETs and that's it. I don't know of any plan to replace those Castle HSTs and if there is, Voyagers from EMR would work perfectly, as the XC ones already operate much of the Penzance route already. There isn't a modern bi-mode going spare that can replace the 10 car workings to allow a cascade of 5 car IETs to the Castle routes anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

Won't trying to do anything lead to having to hand vast vast sums of money to Hitachi for contract modifications?

But this splitting thing seems to have been pushed for the optics of appearing more efficient without consideration of whether it actually wood be or not.

I did these calculations back when the IET was being introduced and it seemed to be at the time that 9-car trains were a better choice - plus the option to extend them to a unitary ten cars for more capacity.

 

[bramling]

Won't trying to do anything lead to having to hand vast vast sums of money to Hitachi for contract modifications?

But this splitting thing seems to have been pushed for the optics of appearing more efficient without consideration of whether it actually wood be or not.

I did these calculations back when the IET was being introduced and it seemed to be at the time that 9-car trains were a better choice - plus the option to extend them to a unitary ten cars for more capacity.

Yes I tend to agree that the premise of the thread should really be "in a perfect world, should they be replaced?", in which case the answer is probably yes.

What we actually have is "should they have been built like this?", in which case the answer seems to be a resounding no, and "are we stuck with them as they are?", to which it's probably a yes, unless something changes and a viable use for the 5-cars to be moved elsewhere emerges.

On paper, it might be viable to move some of the GWR 5-cars to LNER to replace the 225s (though personally I'd rather keep them!), and backfill with 9-cars on GWR. But, again, contractually I bet this would be a nightmare.

It's probably another mess-up to add to the list of rolling stock mess-ups over the last few years, albeit not as bad as some of the other messes - 442s, 365s, 350/2, 707s, transfer of LNER HSTs to EMR to name but a few (and perhaps 379 to come!).

 

[JonathanH]

I don't know of any plan to replace those Castle HSTs

769s displace Turbos which displace 165s which allow 158s to displace HSTs.

 

[bramling]

769s displace Turbos which displace 165s which allow 158s to displace HSTs.

Given how the 769 project really doesn't appear to be going well, is this cascade solid enough? That said, there's potential 158s from TFW which could perform the same function.

 

[JonathanH]

Given how the 769 project really doesn't appear to be going well, is this cascade solid enough? That said, there's potential 158s from TFW which could perform the same function.

TfW 158s are set up for ETRMS so not as easy to use as it might seem. The other option is TfW 150s to release 158s to replace the HSTs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfW 158s are set up for ETRMS so not as easy to use as it might seem. The other option is TfW 150s to release 158s to replace the HSTs.

They are also equipped with TPWS and AWS for use as far as Shrewsbury, on the North Wales Coast etc, so yes, they can be used.

If they don't go to GWR they will almost certainly go to Northern for use on non-ERTMS equipped routes.

 

[JonathanH]

They are also equipped with TPWS and AWS for use as far as Shrewsbury, on the North Wales Coast etc, so yes, they can be used.

If they don't go to GWR they will almost certainly go to Northern for use on non-ERTMS equipped routes.

Of course they can be used but they may need some additional traincrew training to be used if the desk has been changed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course they can be used but they may need some additional traincrew training to be used if the desk has been changed.

This is unlikely to be a big thing compared with the savings (track wear and fuel) from not using HSTs.

158s won't go in the bin as long as there are 156s, though, they are a drop-in replacement (for most routes) and much newer.

 

[bramling]

Of course they can be used but they may need some additional traincrew training to be used if the desk has been changed.

I wonder how easy it would be to disable the ETCS interface and fit a standard speedometer, but leave the rest of the ETCS apparatus dormant, which would remove some of the driver interface issues. I bet there would still be a considerable amount of extra defect handling knowledge required though.

 

[43074]

769s displace Turbos which displace 165s which allow 158s to displace HSTs.

The idea with the 769s is to displace 165s to provide units for the MetroWest proposals which are starting to come to fruition, TfW 158s are said to be earmarked to replace the HSTs. Withdrawing the Brighton services in May and still not running the full timetable will also free up a couple of units.

 

[RPI]

The last thing XC needs is more 5-car trains!

The 5-cars on GWR are about the right length for the Cheltenham services FWIW (and are rather satisfyingly a perfect fit for the newly extended platform at Stonehouse, not that this is a reason to keep them necessarily)

I disagree that they shouldn't have been built, they're ideal for Bedwyn, off peak Oxfords and also the Exeter stoppers (which are often a wasted 9 car), its more a case of they built too many 5 cars