What is the likely size of the GWR future local / regional fleet

[JonathanH]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-165-166-turbo-diagrams.157030/page-50#post-5821733

I guess a 6 year award couldn’t leave the problem until at least 2028.

Of course it could. All it needs to do is define the issue and then put in place a plan. It doesn't need to deliver it.

When GWR publishes the draft west rolling stock policy and DfT approves (!), it ought to be possible to go ahead anytime since the operating contracts are cost-plus. I’m sure there will be many obstacles though!

My guess will be a mix of circa 135 3 and 4-car Hitachi AT200 all 25kv ac / 750v dc plus interchangeable diesel / battery pack. HMG want to keep Newton Aycliffe busy, and DfT will be all over the efficiencies of an all Hitachi GWR…. SWR West of England could follow suit taking the order to c 170.

I'm not sure how you get to anything like 135 units, particularly if they are 3- and 4-car units.

If the 158s are disbanded back to their original identities for this purpose. the current combined LTV/West diesel fleet is:
* 20 2-car 150s 150202/07/16/19/21/32/33/34/38/39/43/44/46-49/61/63/65/66 (40 vehicles)

* 19 2-car 158s 158745-51/60-62/64-69/71/76/78 (38 vehicles)
* 1 3-car 158 158798 (3 vehicles)
(currently formed as 10 2-car 158745/47/49/50/60/62/65-67/69 and 7 3-car units 158798/950/51/56-59)

* 16 3-car 165s 165101-14/16/17 (48 vehicles)
* 20 2-car 165s 165118-37 (40 vehicles)

* 21 3-car 166s 166201-21 (63 vehicles)

* 14 4-car HST sets GW01-GW11 / GW14-GW16 (although it seems that 15 can be formed with one of GW12/GW13 operating as an additional 3-car set)

That is 113 'units'. We can assume that the 769s basically displace HSTs through the cascade, it they ever enter service, and that modern rolling stock should have slightly better utilisation in any case.

On the basis of 3- or 4- car units, I think we are looking at a total very much below 100, especially if there is some slack in the 80x fleet that can be utilised.

However, I think there will need to be some 2-car units and there are some very specific constraints (eg platform length at Bourne End for Marlow, platform length at Looe, making up 5-car trains on selected Cardiff to Portsmouth services, shorter Cornish branch trains in the winter, the curve at Calstock etc).

There seems to be an assumption that the trains need to be suitable for longer-distance services but it is a mix of metro, local and regional services being provided so it could well be more than one fleet specification (although the constraints above should be noted), whether one body type and different internal configuration or multiple body types and configurations.

Despite the suggestion of a new Hitachi fleet, I suspect that the idea of a 100% new fleet for these services is fantasy.

 

[Energy]

We can assume that the 769s basically displace HSTs through the cascade, it they ever enter service, and that modern rolling stock should have slightly better utilisation in any case.

I believe its planned already with 387s to Cardiff displacing enough IETs to replace them.

The 165/166s can make it to 2030 according to Angel, I'd expect the 150s to be replaced and 158s stay for now.

Following the Greenford branch trial vivarail battery units could be 150 replacements...

NR have put out a decarbonisation plan which includes GWR electrification, though its a NR wishlist and not funded.

 

[JonathanH]

I believe its planned already with 387s to Cardiff displacing enough IETs to replace them.

Is that an implied 379 > 387 > 80x > HST cascade?

The issue with that is that most of the services that go to Cardiff during a normal weekday are just off-peak, with the up trains in the morning and down trains in the evening running through to Swansea. Unless there are going to be fewer 80x at Maliphant overnight and only hourly services to Swansea in the peaks I dont really see how 387s to Cardiff frees up that many 80x.

 

[Energy]

Is that an implied 379 > 387 > 80x > HST cascade?

Not sure if the 379s have anything to do with it. The GWR tender seems to be for getting a better price on the 387s though I could be wrong. The 387 > 80x > HST cascade is I believe what is happening, not only would it remove HSTs but also have more 9 car long distance services instead of 10 car (or often 5 car).

 

[JonathanH]

The 387 > 80x > HST cascade is I believe what is happening, not only would it remove HSTs but also have more 9 car long distance services instead of 10 car (or often 5 car).

Yes, but how do Cardiff services get carved out and where do the spare 387s come from? The only way it could work is to cut the peak frequency of GWR trains between Cardiff and Swansea because that is what drives the peak 80x requirement on the route, not the daytime services from London that terminate at Cardiff.

Changing the stock on off-peak Cardiff trains doesn't allow 80x to operate all day in the West Country.

It would be expected that there are spare 80x now that Bedwyn services don't run from Paddington, the Bristol fasts have been binned and other enhancements aren't happening. However, the repair operation arising from the cracking issue acts in the opposite direction.

 

[RobShipway]

Yes, but how do Cardiff services get carved out and where do the spare 387s come from? The only way it could work is to cut the peak frequency of GWR trains between Cardiff and Swansea because that is what drives the peak 80x requirement on the route, not the daytime services from London that terminate at Cardiff.

Changing the stock on off-peak Cardiff trains doesn't allow 80x to operate all day in the West Country.

It would be expected that there are spare 80x now that Bedwyn services don't run from Paddington, the Bristol fasts have been binned and other enhancements aren't happening. However, the repair operation arising from the cracking issue acts in the opposite direction.

A possibility is that GWR take on the class 379 fleet, which then replaces the class 387's doing their current services which then move to do services such as London to Cardiff. This would cut the peak frequency between Cardiff and Swansea, which I suspect may get covered by extra services from Transport for Wales.

The 165/166 units have been replacing class 158 units and I believe that in the next few years, the class 158 units will replace the class 150 units going forward. Hence, I suspect that the class 158 units will be changed back to being 2 car units. The 3-car unit I suspect would leave for another TOC or be scrapped.

If the class 769's enter passenger service that they are replacing class 165/166 units, so that those can replace fully the class 158 units. So I am not sure how the class 769 units are replacing the 14 HST trains. If anything is replacing the 14 HST trains, it would be either 5-car class 800/0 or class 802/0. The only other option I see would be if class 222/1 units joined GWR with the class 222/0 units going to Cross Country.

Hence, other than the Vivarail units I suspect that GWR will not have any new trains before 2030.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I believe its planned already with 387s to Cardiff displacing enough IETs to replace them.

No, this is not planned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2022 ==

the Bristol fasts have been binned and other enhancements aren't happening.

Don’t forget some of the 80x saved from most of the Bristol fasts never operating have already been deployed to the West of England to remove the splitting and joining at Plymouth and instead running long trains through to Penzance to satisfy demand.

 

[tbtc]

Interesting thread.

I suppose the questions I’d ask (before we could assess how many units will be needed long term) would be:

1. Are we assuming that Oxford will be wired in the next five/ ten years? All the
DMUs needed on the Didcot-Oxford service can be discounted if there’s not going to be a Didcot-Oxford service (because it’ll be 387s from Paddington to Oxford instead)? We were waiting for remodelling before anything was erected? IF we assume (big “if”) that Chiltern can have the Oxford-Banbury local stuff then there are no GWR DMUs needed at/near Oxford (all Worcester services in the hands of 800s, Anything to the south of Oxford will be a 387/800 towards Paddington)?

2. Are we assuming that Basingstoke gets wires too? (I forget where that electrification pledge got to)

3. Do the various Thames Valley branches (Inc Greenford) just get the same DMUs as the Redhill service, or do we look at duckweed-fuelled 399s or something equally leftfield? (It feels wasteful to put a full sized train on some of these branches, when you consider how much better a 399 could be at, the full sized 165 doing the Windsor branch covers a whopping six miles in an hour, I’m reluctant to put full sized 165-replacement on this, given that it’ll probably cost over a million pounds per carriage and will spend most of each hour dwelling… but coming up with bespoke solutions comes at a lot of cost… so do i swallow my pride and accept that it’s “least bad” to have maybe twenty million pounds worth of full sized trains pootling up and down low speed branches better suited to light rail? Figure is based on four branches requiring half a dozen units (one only needed for Bourne End peak duties, another unit always spare) costing at least a million pound per carriage

4. Similar question about expected levels of future electrification about Bristol, do we assume that no DMUs will be needed on Cardiff-Bristol services since it’ll be fully wired and in the hands of something like a 387? Or do the number of longer distance passengers mean that at least some Portsmouth trains would continue to serve Cardiff, even if the line north of Bristol was fully electrified?

Otherwise, we are basing total fleet replacement on a “like for like” basis, when the actual numbers required after these units have been in service for a shortish period could be a bit different

(Sorry, not trying to turn this into an infrastructure argument, I’m just making that any long term decision about what stock will be appropriate needs some degree of certainty about what can be assumed to be electrified, given the half-finished GWML!)

 

[JonathanH]

The solution that 'Xavi' put forward was an 'interchangeable diesel / battery pack' but the point made above is that there are a lot of different discussions about infrastructure changes which would avoid the need for these to be constructed.

One of the things about 769s, although not so great given the age they have already reached, is that they could simply 'revert to 319s' if there were infrastructure changes on their routes.

It does seem that one strategy can't suit all the various needs.

 

[Energy]

No, this is not planned.

Ahh ok.

1. Are we assuming that Oxford will be wired in the next five/ ten years?

Probably, I think they are waiting for the Oxford remodelling to be done.

3. Do the various Thames Valley branches (Inc Greenford) just get the same DMUs as the Redhill service, or do we look at duckweed-fuelled 399s or something equally leftfield? (It feels wasteful to put a full sized train on some of these branches, when you consider how much better a 399 could be at, the full sized 165 doing the Windsor branch covers a whopping six miles in an hour, I’m reluctant to put full sized 165-replacement on this, given that it’ll probably cost over a million pounds per carriage and will spend most of each hour dwelling…

Doing a tag on order for 398s may not be a bad idea.

 

[Xavi]

I'm not sure how you get to anything like 135 units, particularly if they are 3- and 4-car units.

Quick estimate and likely to be inflated by GWR/DfT at least at report / PQQ stages to gain maximum political sway.

The solution that 'Xavi' put forward was an 'interchangeable diesel / battery pack' but the point made above is that there are a lot of different discussions about infrastructure changes which would avoid the need for these to be constructed.

Indeed it should be integrated with infrastructure decisions. I don’t see it happening though - HMG will continue to avoid any commitments whilst delivering good news that fits with the environmental agenda too. That’s the essence in my prediction.

My thoughts are nothing to do with fleets and crayons, more like bloody awful government policy and points scoring! We’ll get a report, EOI, PQQ, tender, preferred bidder, and a change of policy…!

Also, it will be the excuse for nothing to be invested in existing fleets including inevitable ex-TfW stock.

 

[JonathanH]

Also, it will be the excuse for nothing to be invested in existing fleets including inevitable ex-TfW stock.

If there are so many uncertainties about infrastructure, ex-TFW stock is the right way to go.

Ultimately, somewhere is going to end up at the bottom of the pile when it comes to more recently built diesel stock. EMR is ending up with 170s, albeit slowly. The infrastructure decisions really should be around what fleet changes fit with the best return on infrastructure investment.

The possible sop is around 30 or so new units for the key routes and hand me downs on the rest but then it has to be decided what the key routes are, given the only trains that can go to Looe and Gunnislake are 40m 150s.

Of course, new trains can be leased while infrastructure has to be paid for by borrowing.

 

[RobShipway]

Interesting thread.

I suppose the questions I’d ask (before we could assess how many units will be needed long term) would be:

1. Are we assuming that Oxford will be wired in the next five/ ten years? All the
DMUs needed on the Didcot-Oxford service can be discounted if there’s not going to be a Didcot-Oxford service (because it’ll be 387s from Paddington to Oxford instead)? We were waiting for remodelling before anything was erected? IF we assume (big “if”) that Chiltern can have the Oxford-Banbury local stuff then there are no GWR DMUs needed at/near Oxford (all Worcester services in the hands of 800s, Anything to the south of Oxford will be a 387/800 towards Paddington)?

2. Are we assuming that Basingstoke gets wires too? (I forget where that electrification pledge got to)

3. Do the various Thames Valley branches (Inc Greenford) just get the same DMUs as the Redhill service, or do we look at duckweed-fuelled 399s or something equally leftfield? (It feels wasteful to put a full sized train on some of these branches, when you consider how much better a 399 could be at, the full sized 165 doing the Windsor branch covers a whopping six miles in an hour, I’m reluctant to put full sized 165-replacement on this, given that it’ll probably cost over a million pounds per carriage and will spend most of each hour dwelling… but coming up with bespoke solutions comes at a lot of cost… so do i swallow my pride and accept that it’s “least bad” to have maybe twenty million pounds worth of full sized trains pootling up and down low speed branches better suited to light rail? Figure is based on four branches requiring half a dozen units (one only needed for Bourne End peak duties, another unit always spare) costing at least a million pound per carriage

4. Similar question about expected levels of future electrification about Bristol, do we assume that no DMUs will be needed on Cardiff-Bristol services since it’ll be fully wired and in the hands of something like a 387? Or do the number of longer distance passengers mean that at least some Portsmouth trains would continue to serve Cardiff, even if the line north of Bristol was fully electrified?

Otherwise, we are basing total fleet replacement on a “like for like” basis, when the actual numbers required after these units have been in service for a shortish period could be a bit different

(Sorry, not trying to turn this into an infrastructure argument, I’m just making that any long term decision about what stock will be appropriate needs some degree of certainty about what can be assumed to be electrified, given the half-finished GWML!)

For point 3. Surely it would be the class 769's or s similar Stadler Flirt train? With regards Greenford, that I suspect will still be the planned Vivarail battery/hydrogen train and if it works, possibly the same for Basingstoke, unless the route is wired, which I am not expecting to happen for at least another 10 years given party politics here in the UK.

I would imagine, that if there was new trains, then there would be less as you would be having a five car unit on say Portsmouth - Cardiff service rather than a 3-car class 166 coupled to a 2-car class 165 unit.

 

[Snow1964]

I think there might be an electrification answer as a shortish term fix. I wouldn’t even rule out both 387s and 379s on GWR services

Oxford has probably got to wait for the remodelling, but they might be able to split it into 2 stages with just the platform 4 wired initially (as a reversing platform) as soon as new platform 5 loop opens. If it then takes another year or two to do rest of electrification it isn’t really a problem.

The other quick one might be Chippenham-Bath-Bristol, much easier now Temple Meads has been remodelled, but to really make it work they need to add the Bathampton - Westbury - Frome/Warminster section as a number of local trains could then be electric, releasing turbos. They could probably do this bit utilising existing power supply at Melksham/Thingley. Longer term would need to add a new electric supply especially if plan is to convert stone freight trains to electric haulage.

If can get the Oxford terminators and the Bristol via Bath trains fully electric with EMUs then a considerable number of IETs could be released.

One thing I am not sure about is if a 387 would be too slow on Bristol trains, it obviously couldn’t reach 125mph, but ought be be quicker accelerating than an IET on diesel west of Wooten Basset, so not sure what net loss would be. But maybe the answer is a batch of 7 or 8car 125mph EMUs for Paddington - Cardiff/Bristol

Quite a lot of scenarios, but I still feel something like a bi-mode version of a class 385 with 110mph (perhaps only 90-95mph on diesel) would be the better solution as there is currently nothing ideal between a 158 / turbo and an IET, the former not ideal for 3-4 hour journeys, and the other too fast with insufficient doors for secondary routes.

 

[Xavi]

Hence, other than the Vivarail units I suspect that GWR will not have any new trains before 2030.

I think you’re right. Won’t stop the rolling stock reports, EOIs, PQQs though!

 

[Xavi]

When GWR publishes the draft west rolling stock policy and DfT approves (!), it ought to be possible to go ahead anytime since the operating contracts are cost-plus. I’m sure there will be many obstacles though!

My guess will be a mix of circa 135 3 and 4-car Hitachi AT200 all 25kv ac / 750v dc plus interchangeable diesel / battery pack. HMG want to keep Newton Aycliffe busy, and DfT will be all over the efficiencies of an all Hitachi GWR…. SWR West of England could follow suit taking the order to c 170.

GWR Engineering Director has confirmed a working group is developing a specification for a single design of unit to replace all non-IET (except Night Riviera) in GWR fleet. SWR West of England an option too. Hitachi early favourite.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

GWR Engineering Director has confirmed a working group is developing a specification for a single design of unit to replace all non-IET (except Night Riviera) in GWR fleet. SWR West of England an option too. Hitachi early favourite.

That will be a very good move to a consistent and homogeneous fleet. Does it include a replacement for 387s then, or did you just perhaps forget those?

 

[Xavi]

That will be a very good move to a consistent and homogeneous fleet. Does it include a replacement for 387s then, or did you just perhaps forget those?

I forgot!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do hope they are giving due consideration to such a fleet having at least one low floor vehicle. Otherwise that's another massive opportunity missed, with high floor locked in for 30+ years.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I forgot!

So the 387s aren’t set to be replaced by these then?

 

[Xavi]

So the 387s aren’t set to be replaced by these then?

That’s correct.

 

[Snow1964]

I do hope they are giving due consideration to such a fleet having at least one low floor vehicle. Otherwise that's another massive opportunity missed, with high floor locked in for 30+ years.

As a user of the GWR 158, 165, 166 fleet, hadn’t really appreciated what I was missing regarding low floor until today.

On holiday in Puglia (heel of Italy) and regional tracks are ETR-104 4car articulated units (Alston Corradia stream family, with POP logos), level boarding, huge windows with pull down blinds, ramps in floor over bogies, big luggage racks, all announcements in Italian and English. Multiple displays like tv screens, showing progress on a map, speed, station calls with times, scenic picture of next station, even weather at each station, for next few hours. There are bike racks (and logo on side even has a plug, so possibly can charge electric bikes (didn’t think to look). Power socket and usb socket for every pair of seats too. Think they are relatively new (built from 2019, still entering service), they were spotless inside (a cleaner with a squirty bottle and cloths came and wiped during the journey, even though it was under 90 minutes end to end)

Makes those 30+ year old GWR diesel units look primitive, and even the info on the GWR IETs seems ancient compared to these regional trains. The line from Lecce, north through Bari does have an long distance equivalent like an IET (for the record seemed to be Italian ETR-480 and ETR-500 units)

And unlike GWRs 30+ year old diesels, the ETR-104 does fly along silently, being rated at 2MW (2680HP) for an 84m long unit. Until I went on an ETR-104 realised what a regional train should be like in 2020s, a completely different league to the misused suburban trains now serving main regional routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth.

Why have I mentioned this in a speculative thread, basically a framework agreement for no less than 150 units exists for different parts of the country so goes to show big orders can be beneficial, and allow standardisation, not that DfT recognises this, appeare they only understand the price tag, but not the value of their choice (and unlike say a class 701, badly specified, they work and are in service).

 

[Trainbike46]

3. Do the various Thames Valley branches (Inc Greenford) just get the same DMUs as the Redhill service, or do we look at duckweed-fuelled 399s or something equally leftfield? (It feels wasteful to put a full sized train on some of these branches, when you consider how much better a 399 could be at, the full sized 165 doing the Windsor branch covers a whopping six miles in an hour, I’m reluctant to put full sized 165-replacement on this, given that it’ll probably cost over a million pounds per carriage and will spend most of each hour dwelling… but coming up with bespoke solutions comes at a lot of cost… so do i swallow my pride and accept that it’s “least bad” to have maybe twenty million pounds worth of full sized trains pootling up and down low speed branches better suited to light rail? Figure is based on four branches requiring half a dozen units (one only needed for Bourne End peak duties, another unit always spare) costing at least a million pound per carriage

If they only cover 6 miles each hour, could we increase the frequency without requiring any extra units?

GWR Engineering Director has confirmed a working group is developing a specification for a single design of unit to replace all non-IET (except Night Riviera) in GWR fleet. SWR West of England an option too. Hitachi early favourite.

Is there any detail available? Are they thinking diesel / bimode / battery?

My personal favourite strategy would be to move on with electrification, and release DMUs that way, that can then be cacaded increasingly further west

Starting with electrifcation of the thames valley branches, oxford and both lines to Bristol temple meads (from london) (in no particular order). Possibly Severn Beach branch as well

Then work increasingly further out along the mainline towards penzance.

And for the branches, either electrify them when the mainline gets electrified, or alternatively replace the DMUs with BEMUs that charge while on the mainline

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

I do hope they are giving due consideration to such a fleet having at least one low floor vehicle. Otherwise that's another massive opportunity missed, with high floor locked in for 30+ years.

Absolutely essential that they require level boarding. It should be in all new rolling stock orders

 

[irish_rail]

Let's hope the driver isn't forgotten in the design and they don't come up with a tiny cab with massive gangway door and no side view windows!
Seeing as this will be western wide its quite important they get this one right for both staff and passengers, fingers firmly crossed....

 

[Trainbike46]

Let's hope the driver isn't forgotten in the design and they don't come up with a tiny cab with massive gangway door and no side view windows!
Seeing as this will be western wide its quite important they get this one right for both staff and passengers, fingers firmly crossed....

Out of trains that have come into service since say 2015, what would you consider some good and some bad examples?

I've been in some train cabs (not in the UK, as part of a previous job, but I wasn't a driver, so I only ever entered cabs briefly), and there were ver significant differences between unit types in how easy it was to get in or out, but obviously a lot more influences the driver's work environment

 

[Xavi]

Is there any detail available? Are they thinking diesel / bimode / battery?

Hybrid and interchangeable generator sets / batteries have been mentioned as well as 25KV ac and 750V dc capability.

 

[Trainbike46]

Hybrid and interchangeable generator sets / batteries have been mentioned as well as 25KV ac and 750V dc capability.

Sounds like something like a 755/756 then!

 

[Anonymous10]

Sounds like something like a 755/756 then!

I'd expect 756

 

[irish_rail]

From a passenger point of view id absolutely hope for nothing stadler (having had a ride from London to Colchester on one once it was awful in terms of ride and passenger environemnt). Can't comment on the cabs mind as haven't been in one. Oh, and yellow fronts please none of this black warning panel nonsense haha.

 

[Trainbike46]

From a passenger point of view id absolutely hope for nothing stadler (having had a ride from London to Colchester on one once it was awful in terms of ride and passenger environemnt). Can't comment on the cabs mind as haven't been in one. Oh, and yellow fronts please none of this black warning panel nonsense haha.

I have to disagree from a passenger perspective, in my experience the 745 and 755 stadler units are excellent, specifically when compared with what they replaced on the rural routes!

It's a nice environment, with a good layout, level boarding, better than expected seats, way more passenger space than before, bike provision, and the option to change away from diesel engines in the future. What more could you possibly want?

the NS stadler units are decent too, a slight improvement over the SLT sprinter units

Of course the final product will depend heavily on the specification selected, but I would be very happy with stadlers at GWR, and hope they come up with a sensible spec