GWR Class 769 information. (Units no longer with GWR - Off Lease March 23)

[Wyrleybart]

Also managed a ride in a Renaissance train from Montreal to Quebec City a few days later, with a GE P42 upfront, but returning in a very 2nd hand Russian Hydrofoil back up the St. Lawrance River Montreal.

Those things are absolutely hellfire and sadly I have only had one trip from Kos to Rhodes on one many years ago. Saw a couple operating on the Danube last year though.
big claggy noisy diesels and speed on the water. Whats not to like

 

[Snow1964]

Having only now returned to work for the new year, I read the internal "Connect" email today and Mark Hopwood makes comment about the 769 situation, I can't link to it so I'll quote the relevant piece -

"Last week we made the difficult decision to halt our planned rollout of the class 769 tri-mode trains. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, and a number of factors - including production and implementation delays, a fall in customer numbers and budgetary pressures - has influenced this outcome."

"The predicted 12% yearly increase in passengers has, since the pandemic, turned into a real 3% decline in annual numbers - and we feel our existing fleet is appropriate for current levels of customer demand."

"That said, the team involved has worked incredibly hard to get these class 769s to a service-ready position and their efforts will help the ongoing review of our fleet as we look to plan for the future."

Not sure exactly what that means but thought may be of interest!

That sounds like careful choice of words, “halt” is closer to on hold for now, than cancelled.

“Ongoing review of the fleet”. suggests more changes to come.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

“Ongoing review of the fleet”. suggests more changes to come.

Yes, there’s a lot going on with GWR Fleet, which ultimately ends up in options for renewal of Sprinters/Turbos etc.

 

[43102EMR]

“Ongoing review of the fleet”. suggests more changes to come.

That does make me wonder what is to happen to the remainder of the Thames Valley fleet, considering there were plans at one point to send several 387s to Great Northern (now not happening AFAIK)

 

[davetheguard]

Interesting use of words.. he isn't saying it will never happen but more, not 'yet'? If it was completely over wouldn't he say 'terminate' or 'cancel'?

That sounds like careful choice of words, “halt” is closer to on hold for now, than cancelled.

You might be right; or you might be being over optimistic.

I'm thinking of how Failing Grayling only ever "paused" Oxford & Bristol electrification. Years later, nothing's happened, as presumably it's still paused. Or in plain English: "cancelled", but none of the politicians appear to have the balls to say so.

 

[Snow1964]

That does make me wonder what is to happen to the remainder of the Thames Valley fleet, considering there were plans at one point to send several 387s to Great Northern (now not happening AFAIK)

I think multiple threads have suggested that outer suburban commuting to London is down around 30-35% (even 40% of some parts of SWR). If it is suggesting GWR has lost 3% overall per year (let’s call it 9% over 3 years of pandemic) then assuming GWRs commuter traffic is similar, the only way to get to that -9% is for other areas to have not shrunk much, or grown.

Which rather demonstrates that GWR now has the wrong train mix for its services, and elimination of 769s and Castles has made it even harder to match appropriate trains to where the customers are still travelling.

Reading between the lines, either they are going to have to swap part of fleet with another Operator, source more diesel or bi-modes, or rapidly electricity some of the paused schemes so the surplus EMUs can be used instead. Do Nothing doesn’t seem to be a viable option anymore due to growth in West, but shrinkage nearer London making current fleet mix inappropriate.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I think multiple threads have suggested that outer suburban commuting to London is down around 30-35% (even 40% of some parts of SWR). If it is suggesting GWR has lost 3% overall per year (let’s call it 9% over 3 years of pandemic) then assuming GWRs commuter traffic is similar, the only way to get to that -9% is for other areas to have not shrunk much, or grown.

Other areas certainly do seem to have grown. Off-peak traffic to Oxford and the Cotswolds is very strong right now. (Well, not "right now" because there's a strike, but you know what I mean.)

either they are going to have to swap part of fleet with another Operator

I do wonder whether, given the discussed difficulties getting spares for Turbos, it makes sense to concentrate them all with one operator - i.e. GWR. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

[The Ham]

"The predicted 12% yearly increase in passengers has, since the pandemic, turned into a real 3% decline in annual numbers - and we feel our existing fleet is appropriate for current levels of customer demand."

A 12% yearly growth rate appears very high (assuming that's the total over 3 years rather than just one year that's nearly 4% growth per year) likewise the real 3% decline sounds fairly positive (even 3 years at 3% would only be 9% not the 23% fall between Q3 2019/20 to Q2 2021/22)

It is possible that the Q3 2022/23 numbers have shown a 18% increase over the Q2 numbers, to get to a net decrease of 9% compared to pre Covid (which isn't impossible given that Q4 2021/22 to Q1 2022/23 saw growth of 23%, however that was from a lower starting point - making such a large increase much easier). However if that's the case why cut units?

 

[Invincible]

You might be right; or you might be being over optimistic.

I'm thinking of how Failing Grayling only ever "paused" Oxford & Bristol electrification. Years later, nothing's happened, as presumably it's still paused. Or in plain English: "cancelled", but none of the politicians appear to have the balls to say so.

There could have been more effort in sorting out the electrification HOPS factory overnight train, with pre ground surveys, rather than pile in posts and spend time and money sorting out repairs to underground cables?.
Perhaps if the problems with the HOPS factory overnight train can't be fixed then a budget found to do more conventional overhead posts and wiring on the West mainline?, But not for some time?.

Looks like Portersbrook will put the 769s in storage in case GWR, or an another operator, leases them at some point?. But looks like any other BR MK3 based EMUs or DMUs will be scrapped rather than refurbished.

Eversholt do not seem to have an operator linked up for the 321 battery conversion trains, or the 10 new Aventura Hydrogen powered trains they were thinking of ordering (a future possibility for the Reading Gatwick line if passengers are OK with Hydrogen power, but there seems to be skepticism on its safety?).

 

[Benjwri]

and we feel our existing fleet is appropriate for current levels of customer demand.

Glad to see that GWR Head Office have never travelled on anything other than an IET outside of London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2023 ==

I'm thinking of how Failing Grayling only ever "paused" Oxford & Bristol electrification. Years later, nothing's happened, as presumably it's still paused. Or in plain English: "cancelled", but none of the politicians appear to have the balls to say so.

Ever now and then things do appear about it though. Certainly Oxford electrification isn’t a definite no, and is paused in the sense that no decision on its future is going to be made till the new station is complete. Bristol is more tricky, and I’m not so sure will ever happen. I doubt previous agreements with BANES council are in effect, and given recent discussions and visits from UNESCO over other issues I highly doubt it would get permission in the current climate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2023 ==

Other areas certainly do seem to have grown. Off-peak traffic to Oxford and the Cotswolds is very strong right now. (Well, not "right now" because there's a strike, but you know what I mean.)

Pretty much everything outside of London has grown, thanks to the shift in demand to tourism. Traffic in the West is also very strong pretty much all the time, and at numerous times the current fleet has been unable to cope, with people being denied boarding because trains are full and standing a daily occurrence at Bath.

 

[DelW]

Reading between the lines, either they are going to have to swap part of fleet with another Operator, source more diesel or bi-modes, or rapidly electricity some of the paused schemes so the surplus EMUs can be used instead. Do Nothing doesn’t seem to be a viable option anymore due to growth in West, but shrinkage nearer London making current fleet mix inappropriate.

There is another possibility - drive enough passengers away that the current fleet is adequate for those that are left.

Those of us who remember the 1950s and '60s know that BR repeatedly did that to close branch lines - cut the timetable, break connections at main-line junctions, remove trains at school times, and lo and behold "there's no demand, so we have to close the branch". I'm sure DfT still have a copy of that playbook somewhere to hand.

Pretty much every announcement at present seems to presage things being made worse for passengers for the foreseeable future.

 

[Deepgreen]

One of the Oxford ones appeared to have been quite comprehensively graffitied before Christmas.

Yes: https://flic.kr/p/2njzVoP

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2023 ==

There is another possibility - drive enough passengers away that the current fleet is adequate for those that are left.

Those of us who remember the 1950s and '60s know that BR repeatedly did that to close branch lines - cut the timetable, break connections at main-line junctions, remove trains at school times, and lo and behold "there's no demand, so we have to close the branch". I'm sure DfT still have a copy of that playbook somewhere to hand.

Pretty much every announcement at present seems to presage things being made worse for passengers for the foreseeable future.

Yep - the government still prohibits anything useful from the TOCs but likes to play 'hands off' when it suits. A recipe for decline and demise.

 

[JN114]

Yes: https://flic.kr/p/2njzVoP

769930 was cleaned up not long after the picture you linked to was taken.

The poster above referred to a fresh “attack” just before Christmas

 

[dgl]

At some point the government will have to realise that constantly tarting up/repairing old units costs more than buying new, especially if parts have to be made specially and as such cost a lot to acquire. Of course they will only see short term costs and not realise that a small spend here, another small spend there and so on end up to being quite a lot. Plus if they did agree to some new stock it would be a somewhat useful good news story for them.

 

[Annetts key]

… or the 10 new Aventura Hydrogen powered trains they were thinking of ordering (a future possibility for the Reading Gatwick line if passengers are OK with Hydrogen power, but there seems to be skepticism on its safety?).

I don’t think there is really an big issue with safety, hydrogen powered busses and other road vehicles have been around for a while now. The more important issue is how (as in what method) is the hydrogen being produced. Currently the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from gas, oil or coal, all of which still have the problem of greenhouse gases being produced.

If electricity is used to produce hydrogen, the source of that electricity would need to be from a renewable source.

Ever now and then things do appear about it though. Certainly Oxford electrification isn’t a definite no, and is paused in the sense that no decision on its future is going to be made till the new station is complete. Bristol is more tricky, and I’m not so sure will ever happen. I doubt previous agreements with BANES council are in effect, and given recent discussions and visits from UNESCO over other issues I highly doubt it would get permission in the current climate.

So do you think this site near Bristol Temple Meads:

(photo shows an unused OHL electrical substation near Bristol Temple Meads)
(You can also see it using Google Maps)
… is a modern white elephant?

 

[Benjwri]

So do you think this site near Bristol Temple Meads:

(photo shows an unused OHL electrical substation near Bristol Temple Meads)
(You can also see it using Google Maps)
… is a modern white elephant?

I couldn’t say, when was it built?

What I can say is I highly doubt Bath will see electrification. The Bath Preservation Trust were a large barrier in the initial application, and brought up many issues with it. I’ve heard from a member of their board that they would almost definitely object to an application now, as long as the trains running on the line would be capable of diesel power regardless.

Bath has also received a large amount of attention from UNESCO recently, as the entire city is a world heritage site, with delegations being sent by UNESCO to two planning hearings for developments in recent years to consider if it should keep world heritage status. One of these developments is less than 500m from the railway, and both are in far, far less exposed places than the railway, which runs on an exposed bridge above the city and riverside, very close to the centre. Bath is very keen to avoid UNESCO attention and risk it’s status, and I would imagine the government is similarly, given Liverpool’s loss of its status since these plans were approved.

 

[12LDA28C]

At some point the government will have to realise that constantly tarting up/repairing old units costs more than buying new, especially if parts have to be made specially and as such cost a lot to acquire. Of course they will only see short term costs and not realise that a small spend here, another small spend there and so on end up to being quite a lot. Plus if they did agree to some new stock it would be a somewhat useful good news story for them.

I don't think the Government is remotely interested in providing any 'good news stories' about the railway currently, quite the opposite.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There is another possibility - drive enough passengers away that the current fleet is adequate for those that are left.

Those of us who remember the 1950s and '60s know that BR repeatedly did that to close branch lines - cut the timetable, break connections at main-line junctions, remove trains at school times, and lo and behold "there's no demand, so we have to close the branch". I'm sure DfT still have a copy of that playbook somewhere to hand.

Pretty much every announcement at present seems to presage things being made worse for passengers for the foreseeable future.

Sadly i suspect you aren't far wrong here

 

[Benjwri]

There is another possibility - drive enough passengers away that the current fleet is adequate for those that are left.

Those of us who remember the 1950s and '60s know that BR repeatedly did that to close branch lines - cut the timetable, break connections at main-line junctions, remove trains at school times, and lo and behold "there's no demand, so we have to close the branch". I'm sure DfT still have a copy of that playbook somewhere to hand.

This might have worked in 1969, and may still work on branch lines in the Thames Valley, but the government is currently making it impossible for leisure travel by cars to cities, by introducing extortionate parking charges, clean air zones and limits on parking outside your house. That play book will not work in the West.

In face this was proven last month when GWR didn’t stop at Bath for a day during the strikes. Even though it was just for a day, and people could easily have travelled another day, every car park in Bath was full, and the park and rides, which I have never seen above 50% occupancy in the absolute worst day, were absolutely full. There was a 2 hour wait for the park and ride bus, and every bus from Bristol was full.

If they apply that policy to the mainlines people will stop travelling for leisure full stop. It will kill the leisure economy and ring the final bell for the high street. Whatever government is in power, that’s not in their interest.

 

[DelW]

This might have worked in 1969, and may still work on branch lines in the Thames Valley, but the government is currently making it impossible for leisure travel by cars to cities, by introducing extortionate parking charges, clean air zones and limits on parking outside your house. That play book will not work in the West.

In face this was proven last month when GWR didn’t stop at Bath for a day during the strikes. Even though it was just for a day, and people could easily have travelled another day, every car park in Bath was full, and the park and rides, which I have never seen above 50% occupancy in the absolute worst day, were absolutely full. There was a 2 hour wait for the park and ride bus, and every bus from Bristol was full.

If they apply that policy to the mainlines people will stop travelling for leisure full stop. It will kill the leisure economy and ring the final bell for the high street. Whatever government is in power, that’s not in their interest.

That's true, but I didn't have the main lines in mind - the contract for the 80x fleet means they'll be in full use for many years to come. It's the secondary and suburban services run by the ageing Turbos, and which might have benefitted from the now abandoned 769s, that I think are at risk. Those seemed to be the ones being covered in Snow1964's post to which I was replying.

 

[Deepgreen]

I couldn’t say, when was it built?

What I can say is I highly doubt Bath will see electrification. The Bath Preservation Trust were a large barrier in the initial application, and brought up many issues with it. I’ve heard from a member of their board that they would almost definitely object to an application now, as long as the trains running on the line would be capable of diesel power regardless.

Bath has also received a large amount of attention from UNESCO recently, as the entire city is a world heritage site, with delegations being sent by UNESCO to two planning hearings for developments in recent years to consider if it should keep world heritage status. One of these developments is less than 500m from the railway, and both are in far, far less exposed places than the railway, which runs on an exposed bridge above the city and riverside, very close to the centre. Bath is very keen to avoid UNESCO attention and risk it’s status, and I would imagine the government is similarly, given Liverpool’s loss of its status since these plans were approved.

Perhaps if a continental-style slim OHLE regime were adopted it might help. The current GWR OHLE is farcically over-engineered. Heritage status should not mean electrification cannot happen. I'm sure there are numerous European UNESCO sites with OHLE.

 

[eldomtom2]

What would OHLE even require that UNESCO would object to? Would major alteration of some buildings be required, or is it just that overheard wires supposedly spoil the view?

 

[Annetts key]

I couldn’t say, when was it built?

It’s part of the GWML OHL scheme, construction started during that scheme. It was a lot less complete when the GWML OHL scheme was “paused”, but work on this substation continued. Presumably because it was not in the railways interests to try to cancel the contract for the work. Ever since it has been stood there waiting for the Bristol end of the GWML OHL scheme…
I don’t know the dates unfortunately, as it never occurred to me to note them down!

What would OHLE even require that UNESCO would object to? Would major alteration of some buildings be required, or is it just that overheard wires supposedly spoil the view?

As I understand it, by extending the platform edges away from the canopies of the station buildings at Bath Spa, no significant alterations are needed to the station buildings. However, I don’t know where the OHL columns would be positioned. Maybe they would go in between the two lines (where the through siding once was).
However, installation of OHL will obviously affect the station and the lines to and from it from a visual perspective.

It’s all well and good saying that trains should use diesel engines but the crud that builds up on the Bath stone buildings is partly due to emissions from internal combustion engines like diesels…

 

[Benjwri]

Heritage status should not mean electrification cannot happen. I'm sure there are numerous European UNESCO sites with OHLE.

No it shouldn’t, and whether it is UNESCO or a fear UNESCO will get involved holding other developments back is up for debate. However as I understand it the issue is it running above the city, and therefore being visible from a long distance.

What would OHLE even require that UNESCO would object to? Would major alteration of some buildings be required, or is it just that overheard wires supposedly spoil the view?

a lot of the work was done when the scheme was originally planned, but there are still alterations to listed bridges and the area around Sydney Gardens needed, however the main concern is that it would be an eyesore I believe.

It’s part of the GWML OHL scheme, construction started during that scheme. It was a lot less complete when the GWML OHL scheme was “paused”, but work on this substation continued. Presumably because it was not in the railways interests to try to cancel the contract for the work.

Substations are build for NR by the Nation Grid usually, with the equipment being custom made with long lead times. I presume either the equipment couldn’t be used in other sites, therefore cost saving was marginal by not completing it, or NR decided they might as well complete it to avoid the lead times in the future.

As I understand it, by extending the platform edges away from the canopies of the station buildings at Bath Spa, no significant alterations are needed to the station buildings. However, I don’t know where the OHL columns would be positioned.

Bath Spa was made compatible for electrification when the platform works were carried out yes. The electrification would be from a central column between the tracks yes. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Oldfield Park, which I believe would be quite tricky to install electrification around because of its positioning.

 

[50002Superb]

Was out and about yesterday.

Spotted 769927 at Wolverton

Also looked to me like 769938 was attached to 57305 as I passed Reading depot. Heading to Long Marston soon perhaps?

 

[FGW_DID]

Was out and about yesterday.

Spotted 769927 at Wolverton

Also looked to me like 769938 was attached to 57305 as I passed Reading depot. Heading to Long Marston soon perhaps?

Thanks for the confirmation that 927 is still at Wolverton, it’s showing on the IT system as being at LM.

No, 938 is just stabled next to 57305, not coupled.

 

[50002Superb]

Thanks for the confirmation that 927 is still at Wolverton, it’s showing on the IT system as being at LM.

No, 938 is just stabled next to 57305, not coupled.

No worries.

It can be easily viewed from the public footpath next to Quick Fit for anyone needing it for sight.

 

[jfollows]

Having only now returned to work for the new year, I read the internal "Connect" email today and Mark Hopwood makes comment about the 769 situation, I can't link to it so I'll quote the relevant piece -

"Last week we made the difficult decision to halt our planned rollout of the class 769 tri-mode trains. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, and a number of factors - including production and implementation delays, a fall in customer numbers and budgetary pressures - has influenced this outcome."

"The predicted 12% yearly increase in passengers has, since the pandemic, turned into a real 3% decline in annual numbers - and we feel our existing fleet is appropriate for current levels of customer demand."

"That said, the team involved has worked incredibly hard to get these class 769s to a service-ready position and their efforts will help the ongoing review of our fleet as we look to plan for the future."

Not sure exactly what that means but thought may be of interest!

RAIL issue 974 11-24 Jan reports that GWR will hand them all (19 units) back to Porterbrook without having been used in passenger service.

GWR hands back unused fleet of Class 769 tri-modes

GREAT Western Railway is to hand back a fleet of 19 trains before they have carried a single passenger.

It took the 19 four-car Class 769 units for use on the North Downs Line between Reading and Gatwick. The tri-mode trains can use third-rail electric, overhead wires and diesel power.

But the company says the trains are no longer necessary, and that they will be handed back to leasing company Porterbrook. The existing diesel fleet of Class 165 Turbos will remain in use for the foreseeable future.

The deal to deliver the modified former Thameslink Class 319s was signed in 2018, at a time when passenger demand on the route was growing steadily. GWR carried out extensive testing of the trains, but driver training had not started and none had entered service. “The business case for the ‘769s’ was always based on strong potential growth. But that's been significantly stalled, given the changes in how customers are using the railway since the pandemic,” GWR spokesman Dan Panes told RAIL.

GWR had assumed 12% passenger growth on the line between 2019 and 2022. In reality, it has dropped by 3%.

“We need to constantly look and reassess our options in the face of changing customer demand,” said Panes.

“This is the right decision for right now, and we are confident the current fleets are appropriate for current levels of demand in the area.”

He added that savings would come from not paying the leasing costs, not conducting driver training, and not having the complications of a separate maintenance programme for a small fleet that differed significantiy from all other GWR stock. “The outcome is that we are not spending money on trains that am not required,” he said. The first train was delivered in August 2020 and accepted for service in March 2021. The lease on the fleet was also due for renewal at the end of March.

Other similar trains, with or without tri-mode power, are in use with Northern and in Wales.

GWR will also have additional Class 387 Electrostar commuter trains spare. They were previously used on semi-fast Reading to London services that were taken over by TfL Rail’s Elizabeth line stock. These will enable other stock with diesel power to be moved to other duties. @PaulCliftonBBC

 

[Wyrleybart]

I couldn’t say, when was it built?

What I can say is I highly doubt Bath will see electrification. The Bath Preservation Trust were a large barrier in the initial application, and brought up many issues with it. I’ve heard from a member of their board that they would almost definitely object to an application now, as long as the trains running on the line would be capable of diesel power regardless.

Bath has also received a large amount of attention from UNESCO recently, as the entire city is a world heritage site, with delegations being sent by UNESCO to two planning hearings for developments in recent years to consider if it should keep world heritage status. One of these developments is less than 500m from the railway, and both are in far, far less exposed places than the railway, which runs on an exposed bridge above the city and riverside, very close to the centre. Bath is very keen to avoid UNESCO attention and risk it’s status, and I would imagine the government is similarly, given Liverpool’s loss of its status since these plans were approved.

Well there is a really simple solution to that. Provide the good citizens of Bath with a diesel shuttle service to Chippenham to change onto modern electric trains to Reading and London, then divert the bimode trains onto more necessary routes which won't be serving Bath.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2023 ==

RAIL issue 974 11-24 Jan reports that GWR will hand them all (19 units) back to Porterbrook without having been used in passenger service.

So provided the lack of growth due to covid sees trains services reduced "across the board" and not justr the routes the 769s were converted for, then it isn't a problem. The elimination of "Castles" in the west will see a mix of service reduction / stagnation instead of Turboisation. So this presumably means people in Somerset Devon and Cornwall share the same post covid lack of growth of other routes

 

[Benjwri]

Well there is a really simple solution to that. Provide the good citizens of Bath with a diesel shuttle service to Chippenham to change onto modern electric trains to Reading and London, then divert the bimode trains onto more necessary routes which won't be serving Bath.

I think we both know this isn't a reasonable option, but to entertain it, you are saying Bristol Temple Meads and Bath should be cut off from direct London trains, which should instead terminate at Chippenham? I don't see any other way they could run through Chippenham but not Bath. And why should those who live in Bath be punished for what is effectively 2 preservation societies, neither of which are elected, blocking the electrification?

onto more necessary routes

I would hardly call the trains that service Bath not 'necessary'. The London to BTM services are some of the busiest IETs on the GWR network, and are generally standing at almost all times of the day, being full and standing at some.

divert the bimode trains

This is the point of the preservation societies, as long as all the trains running through Bath would be bi mode, as they would be continuing , the effects of the electrification on the city would not be justified, because the environmental effects of running on diesel for the short stretch in the city itself is negligible.

To be fair to them they did mention they would reconsider their stance is GWR/DfT presented them with plans to convert a significant amount of the trains running through the city to electric only trains. Basically if they had plans for London-Bristol services run only, or significantly (I.E. not just one 387 a day like Bristol Parkway sees), by either 801s, 387s or some other electric only train.

I do get their point. Electrification of Bath would be detrimental to the city whatever happens, but if it were to lose their UNESCO status the economic impact to the city would be huge. And yet the scheme would see no immediate benefit to the city. It would still see exactly the same trains it does now, yes the IETs would run on electric but having lived next to the railway for a year they are quiet already, and their environmental impact is minimal. However the noisy, polluting and old 166s and 158s would still be running diesel under the wires.

More on the topic of the thread, I can't help but think a bi-mode train, perhaps such as even the 769, would have sweetened the deal in getting permission to electrify Bath.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2023 ==

So provided the lack of growth due to covid sees trains services reduced "across the board" and not justr the routes the 769s were converted for, then it isn't a problem. The elimination of "Castles" in the west will see a mix of service reduction / stagnation instead of Turboisation. So this presumably means people in Somerset Devon and Cornwall share the same post covid lack of growth of other routes

It has been said numerous times unused 5 800s are being used to make up for the Castles, there has been no confirmation of service reductions in the west, certainly it has been confirmed Cornwall isn't losing it's 30 minute metro frequency. I would be highly surprised if the Bristol area saw a decrease in frequency, since the MetroWest project is technically still going ahead, if anything that would be canned.

So this presumably means people in Somerset Devon and Cornwall share the same post covid lack of growth of other routes

I can assure you this isn't true, at least in Somerset. Almost ever service between Bath and Bristol, IET or Turbo, is at least standing when everything is running fine. When services are short formed, which is increasingly a problem, trains become full and standing, and not everyone being able to board trains at Bath during rush hour is currently a common problem.