GWR stock shortage: potential solutions

[Dan G]

Because they're ten years younger and are better trains.

 

[dk1]

Why? With all the route clearance, traincrew and depot training and fitting the SDO to 175s it’ll be quicker to wait for the Welsh 158s.

Very sensible.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Because they're ten years younger and are better trains.

175s have a much lower reliability than 158s. The Pompey / Cardiff route has enough challenges without adding unreliable trains to the list.

 

[irish_rail]

But not for any reason other than it’s your turf. Based in Cardiff I would argue we’re 100% just as in need of 9/10s. All we seem to get is 5s now and they leave masses of people behind.

No, its a longer journey time. So 2 hours standing from Cardiff to London is preferable to over 3 standing from Plymouth to London. Its nothing to do with being my " turf ".

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

No, its a longer journey time. So 2 hours standing from Cardiff to London is preferable to over 3 standing from Plymouth to London. Its nothing to do with being my " turf ".

3 hours Swansea to London - not sure why you’ve chosen to curtail the route for this comparison

 

[HamworthyGoods]

3 hours Swansea to London

I’m sure next they’ll be a comment Penzance is 5 hours…

For completeness both routes are long journeys roughly as follows:

Penzance, Newquay and Pembroke (5 hours);
Truro and Carmarthen (4 hours);
Plymouth and Swansea (3 hours);
Exeter and Cardiff (2 hours)

Both routes really deserve the capacity needed not this constant trade off against each other.

Funnily enough these are both GWR’s longest distance routes Paddington to Pembroke and Paddington to Newquay and Penzance all being in the region of 5 hours, 250 miles or so and all quite seasonal in terms of a summer spike in traffic (and 2 of the 3 destinations only having seasonal through services to London).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Both routes really deserve the capacity needed not this constant trade off against each other.

Well yes, this is the argument I’ve been making. Bristol, South Wales and South West should (and do, plus there’s plenty of interworking) share the 9s among them as all three badly need the capacity. I refuse to accept the South West deserves priority.

 

[irish_rail]

I’m sure next they’ll be a comment Penzance is 5 hours…

For completeness both routes are long journeys roughly as follows:

Penzance, Newquay and Pembroke (5 hours);
Truro and Carmarthen (4 hours);
Plymouth and Swansea (3 hours);
Exeter and Cardiff (2 hours)

Both routes really deserve the capacity needed not this constant trade off against each other.

Funnily enough these are both GWR’s longest distance routes Paddington to Pembroke and Paddington to Newquay and Penzance all being in the region of 5 hours, 250 miles or so and all quite seasonal in terms of a summer spike in traffic (and 2 of the 3 destinations only having seasonal through services to London).

I'd be interested in the passenger numbers doing Swansea to London. A lot less than do Cornwall stations to London i reckon. Also Plymouth to London is 3hrs 15 not 3 hours, and some services much longer than that. Also , at a guess far more travelling Plymouth to London than ex Swansea? Happy to be corrected though. In an ideal world all three IC routes should be fully 9 car, but of course, as has been discussed many times, GWR got the sh*tty end of the stick in terms of unit lengths, and I stand by my feelings that the 9 cars should be concentrated on the Paddington to Penzance route , especially once the additional siding space at Long Rock is open.

 

[Snow1964]

I'd be interested in the passenger numbers doing Swansea to London. A lot less than do Cornwall stations to London i reckon. Also Plymouth to London is 3hrs 15 not 3 hours, and some services much longer than that. Also , at a guess far more travelling Plymouth to London than ex Swansea? Happy to be corrected though. In an ideal world all three IC routes should be fully 9 car, but of course, as has been discussed many times, GWR got the sh*tty end of the stick in terms of unit lengths, and I stand by my feelings that the 9 cars should be concentrated on the Paddington to Penzance route , especially once the additional siding space at Long Rock is open.

If it helps, populations are
Cornwall 565k, Devon 790k, Somerset 560k, total about 1.9m

Swansea area 315k, Pembrokeshire 125k, Carmarthenshire 190k, Bridgend 150k, Mid Glamorgan 130k, about 0.8m

Roughly South West has 2.4 times population compared to area west of Cardiff. Doesn't mean same proportion travel to/from London though, and there are not about 2.4 times the frequency in SW to the 2 hourly Swansea service.

 

[Dan G]

175s have a much lower reliability than 158s. The Pompey / Cardiff route has enough challenges without adding unreliable trains to the list.

In TfW service 175s have MTIN 25% higher than the 158s. Compared to GWR's 158s, it's 50% higher.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2023 ==

If it helps, populations are
Cornwall 565k, Devon 790k, Somerset 560k, total about 1.9m

You missed out Plymouth and Torbay; what is probably best described as the old county of Devon has a population of 1.2m

 

[irish_rail]

If it helps, populations are
Cornwall 565k, Devon 790k, Somerset 560k, total about 1.9m

Swansea area 315k, Pembrokeshire 125k, Carmarthenshire 190k, Bridgend 150k, Mid Glamorgan 130k, about 0.8m

Roughly South West has 2.4 times population compared to area west of Cardiff. Doesn't mean same proportion travel to/from London though, and there are not about 2.4 times the frequency in SW to the 2 hourly Swansea service.

Population figures speak for themselves then. Id also argue probably more visitors by rail to the south west than west Wales, but again I can't be sure of that. And if a passenger cannot board at Cardiff because a 5 car turns up, at least its only a half hour wait for next London train. From Plymouth, its generally an hour wait for next one.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Having just spent a lovely weekend in Devon and Cornwall using the rovers, just seeing the 150’s again reminded me of how knackered they actually are. Don’t get me wrong if it’s the 150 or nothing then absolutely I’m taking the 150, but surely most agree they are totally past it now?

I myself would like to see the 158’s kept in the short to medium term, only as current developments across the industry would suggest a new order is very unlikely in the current climate. I’d say the same thing about Northern’s radical plan to replace most of the older diesels.

Might sufficient Cummins powered 158’s become available from the likes of EMR? That would at least withdraw some of the 150’s which would then allow for the remaining makeshift 3 car 158’s to return to 2 cars? I’m aware of the issues surrounding the Liverpool to Norwich service but I’d suggest EMR shouldn’t be needing 26 additional units just for those services. The transfer of additional 170’s should also further help free up 158’s.

Then there’s also this 230 trial to come into play, which again should hopefully free up more 165’s to head to Bristol and thus the last 158’s down to Devon.

The here and now solutions are there in my opinion, it’s just dependant on things going smoothly. However this is the railway after all, which is known for very little to go smoothly!

 

[Clarence Yard]

175s have a much lower reliability than 158s. The Pompey / Cardiff route has enough challenges without adding unreliable trains to the list.

Professionally speaking, you would have to pay me to take 175’s. The Coradia design is great for the punter but a maintainers nightmare and if you want to design out all the bad features, you would probably scrap them and build new - it would be cheaper.

They are more suited to a route or routes where they can do journeys cycling around a depot with a load of out and back workings - Chiltern is a better bet for them than GWR where they would reduce the Pompey-Cardiff service to an unreliable mess within a very short space of time.

The Pompey-Cardiff relies on having a reliable unit that you can outstable and fire up again in the morning without having to worry too much about it going either bang or fizz-bang-spizzle. In the short term that means 15x or 16x. Just need enough of them to make 4 or 5 cars on each of the circuits.

 

[gc4946]

I'd keep things simple, until new stock is ordered, GWR's better off awaiting 150s and 158s released from TfW.
If the 230 battery trial is successful GWR could order units for Thames Valley, Gunnislake and Looe branches.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

If the 230 battery trial is successful GWR could order units for Thames Valley, Gunnislake and Looe branches.

I wonder if St Ives would also work? Perhaps in a high density arrangement too as that line is often full and is only a 10 minute journey.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That was the line Vivarail first tried to persuade GWR to let a battery 230 loose on. The turnaround times were then pointed out to them.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I wonder if St Ives would also work? Perhaps in a high density arrangement too as that line is often full and is only a 10 minute journey.

It might only be an 11 minute journey but with constant 4 minute journeys as CY points out it never gets a chance to recharge during the day.

 

[gc4946]

But would a fast-charge battery solution work for Looe or Gunnislake (or any of the other Cornish) branches?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But would a fast-charge battery solution work for Looe or Gunnislake (or any of the other Cornish) branches?

Looe has the similar 3-4 minute turnarounds relentlessly through the day from start to finish as St Ives so is unlikely to have time to charge one would assume.

Gunnislake has a very steep climb beyond Calstock, that might be challenging but does have longer turnarounds.

Falmouth and Newquay will of course by the time any new trains enter traffic be joined together into a through service.

 

[Dan G]

Having just spent a lovely weekend in Devon and Cornwall using the rovers, just seeing the 150’s again reminded me of how knackered they actually are. Don’t get me wrong if it’s the 150 or nothing then absolutely I’m taking the 150, but surely most agree they are totally past it now?

Yes, the 150s are absolute sheds. I think a lot of people don't realise how poor they are to travel on. Impossible to have a conversation across a table.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is also a potential environmental argument to be made. A 9 car has 5 GUs (engines essentially) whereas a 10 car has 6. Over the life of these trains, id imagine that one extra engine (for no real passenger benefit in terms of capacity as 10 cars basically hold same number of people as a 9) makes a difference.

Not just the extra GU, the 10th coach is a whole load more track wear, energy required to move it etc. all for no passenger benefit. A 1x9-car IET is a far more sensible train than a 2x5-car IET. I'm opposed to any more 80X/810 driving cars being built - we've got loads of them - it's intermediate cars (without GUs) to lengthen existing sets that are needed.

They are more suited to a route or routes where they can do journeys cycling around a depot with a load of out and back workings - Chiltern is a better bet for them than GWR where they would reduce the Pompey-Cardiff service to an unreliable mess within a very short space of time.

The Pompey-Cardiff relies on having a reliable unit that you can outstable and fire up again in the morning without having to worry too much about it going either bang or fizz-bang-spizzle. In the short term that means 15x or 16x. Just need enough of them to make 4 or 5 cars on each of the circuits.

Arriva Trains Wales used the 175s on Manchester - Carmarthen / Milford Haven services for many years without it being known as an unreliable mess. Overcrowded yes, but I can't recall it being known for failures. This included outstabling at Carmarthen - indeed at one time somebody commented on the Coffee Shop forum that everything spending the night in Carmarthen must be a 175. It's only the last year or two in TfW service that the 175's reliability has taken a shocking fall.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

So this leads on to what the actual maintenance requirements, cleaning (inside and out, including emptying toilet tanks and refilling the fresh/clean water) and refuelling requirements actually are.

Not all trains go back to a depot every night. But I don’t know about the Hitachi stock.
Plus, some work into the early morning and some start work very early in the morning. These are not in the depots all night for maintenance/cleaning/etc.

Back when Intercity HST sets were the mainstay of GWR, they used to queue to enter the maintenance depot, queue to refuel etc. Of course, it was easier to take a loco out of service for heavy maintenance.

Not everywhere, granted, but on parts of the Western there are many (I can think of enough to stable at least ten nine car trains in the Bristol area alone) empty sidings where stock could be stabled while either awaiting to enter service or waiting before going to a depot. Yes, of course security would have to be improved to prevent vandalism.

The most worrying thing from my point of view is what is the DaFT going to do to try to cope with any increase in passenger numbers. Do they actually have any idea?

The long term solution if the 80X reliability does not improve is to buy brand new trains to improve capacity (and I don’t mean buy new Hitachi stock). But that’s going to be expensive. And something that the current government would not allow.

In the shorter term, taking currently operational stock out of service is a very bad idea. As said earlier, the passenger does not care about the reasons or the railway politics.

The number of trains that Hitachi make available to GWR is almost irrelevant, the important point is, do GWR have the required number of trains to run the timetabled service (including the required number of cars/coaches for each timetabled train)? If the answer is no, then the railway needs to find a solution.

Be that, GWR and Network Rail do something to reduce the number of trains being damaged. And GWR/DaFT find a way in the contract to force Hitachi to improve the number of trains (and the number of cars/carriages) being made available to GWR to be at least the minimum number specified in the contract.

If Hitachi have a lack of suitable spare parts now, what’s the situation going to like in five, ten, fifteen years?

If Hitachi, GWR and Network Rail can’t get their respective acts together, did the DaFT include any “get out” clause in the Hitachi contract?

Personally, I think the train length (number of seats and number of cars/carriages) should be specified in the public timetable. Said timetable must be valid for at least 12 months. If a railway operator fails to provide ANY part of the advertised service (train cancelled, short formed or less seats than planned, a car/carriage out of use, terminated short, started at a different origin, delayed by more than twenty minutes at ANY station that it’s scheduled/timetabled to stop at or where less than ⅔ of the toilets are working) every passenger should be entitled to a full refund or a voucher to the same value. No messing around with delay repay.

We need a railway fit for the twenty-first century, not the mess we currently have. And that goes for the whole shebang, not just the TOCs, but also Network Rail. Trying, as the current Conservative government are doing, to run the railway while squeezing the funding is not going to work. Yes, income from the selling of tickets may well be less than pre-pandemic. But inflation means that the operating and maintenance costs are higher than pre-pandemic.

Ultimately, the passenger wants a good experience. Especially if we are trying to attract more people to travel by train rather than by air or by road (yes I know the railways can get everyone out of aircraft and road vehicles).

The root cause of the problem sounds like good ol' neoliberalism. Sneer at the in-house "boffins" and throw everything open to the market and competitive tender. An integrated railway with its own manufacturing/design capabilities would surely avoid GWR's problems.

I was going to suggest bringing in the IC225 rakes, but then I remembered the wires don't go to Bristol or Swansea. What a joke...

GWR needs a fully integrated plan: Electrification/rolling stock/stabling space, but when we have a government machine that sees its own existence as a nuisance, its "cutting costs" is the only option the railway has available

 

[Rhydgaled]

GWR needs a fully integrated plan: Electrification/rolling stock/stabling space

Agreed. As far as InterCity and outer-suburban London services are concerned there is already some modern stock with pantographs in place (387s, 800s and 802s) so might as well make use of these. Electrification needs to be extended to Oxford ASAP, followed by closely by Basingstoke*, Coventry* and Bristol (both via Bath and via Parkway) and then Swansea. Integrated with this should be reducing Carmarthen back to 1 GWR service MON-FRI and 3 per day at weekends, remodelling and extension of platforms at Carmarthen to accomodate a 9-car 80x (or running the westbound service non-stop from PAD to SWA so it can be 5-car without overcrowding) and lengthening of either the 5-car 802s or the 5-car 800s to 9-car sets. None of the new 80x vehicles should be built with diesel gensets (GUs) - with 5tph (most hours) out of PAD to destinations that would then be wired (1 Oxford, 2 Bristol, 1 Cardiff, 1 Swansea) it should be possible to allow some of the 9-cars to be straight electric freeing up GUs for the others.

* these two aren't (primarily) for GWR but for XC to enable new dual-voltage EMUs to be procured for the Manchester-Bournemouth service.

 

[Annetts key]

I would say that Swansea should take priority over the lines to Bristol. Simply because that then allows electric only trains / EMUs to run the Swansea to London Paddington service as soon as possible. This is also the less problematic part of the OHL scheme as far as I am aware.

Work at Bristol Temple Meads may/will need to wait until the work on the main station roof is complete. That will take at least another two (maybe three) years.

After Swansea is finished, the next part, should be the Filton line, linking the current end of the OHL at Stoke Gifford West junction (Bristol Parkway) to Bristol Temple Meads. If needed, this work could start before the work on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads has been completed.

Then, the Bristol Temple Meads to Chippenham (via Bath) section can be done.

 

[irish_rail]

Not just the extra GU, the 10th coach is a whole load more track wear, energy required to move it etc. all for no passenger benefit. A 1x9-car IET is a far more sensible train than a 2x5-car IET. I'm opposed to any more 80X/810 driving cars being built - we've got loads of them - it's intermediate cars (without GUs) to lengthen existing sets that are needed.


Arriva Trains Wales used the 175s on Manchester - Carmarthen / Milford Haven services for many years without it being known as an unreliable mess. Overcrowded yes, but I can't recall it being known for failures. This included outstabling at Carmarthen - indeed at one time somebody commented on the Coffee Shop forum that everything spending the night in Carmarthen must be a 175. It's only the last year or two in TfW service that the 175's reliability has taken a shocking fall.

Indeed the 9 cars are "sought after" . I recently observed operations over several hours, and everything on the Bristol and Oxford route was a 9 car. Meanwhile, about half the Plymouth and Penzance where a 9 car, and only one on the south Wales axis a 9 car. It does seem odd that all of a sudden Oxford seems to be getting a lot more 9 cars and the Bristol route is almost exclusively 9 cars now. Meanwhile the 1203 Padd to Penzance is 2 x 5s . If ever a service needs to be a 9 it's that one. The 2x5s just don't have the same amount of standing capacity and inevitably the London end half ends up absolutely rammed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I would say that Swansea should take priority over the lines to Bristol. Simply because that then allows electric only trains / EMUs to run the Swansea to London Paddington service as soon as possible. This is also the less problematic part of the OHL scheme as far as I am aware.

Work at Bristol Temple Meads may/will need to wait until the work on the main station roof is complete. That will take at least another two (maybe three) years.

After Swansea is finished, the next part, should be the Filton line, linking the current end of the OHL at Stoke Gifford West junction (Bristol Parkway) to Bristol Temple Meads. If needed, this work could start before the work on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads has been completed.

Then, the Bristol Temple Meads to Chippenham (via Bath) section can be done.

Ah; I didn't realise that there was work ongoing on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads. I assume from your wording that this work has at least started though - one reason I left Swansea until after Bristol was that I think there is a need for capacity enhancements between Cardiff and Bridgend - work which probably isn't even on the drawing board yet. Also, Swansea has only 1tph to Paddington for most of the day which would require a micro-fleet of InterCity EMUs to operate if it was the only route done. Apart from being able to run 'rugex' specials between Port Talbot and Cardiff using class 387s there therefore wouldn't be much opportunity for EMUs to be used until Oxford and Bristol are also wired unless TfW do something. It really needs Oxford, Bristol and Swansea all wired before GWR can contemplate taking the gensets out of 80x to make them into straight EMUs.

However, I did put Oxford first and Basingstoke and Coventry in the same batch of schemes as Bristol. If Reading-Basingstoke and Didcot-Coventry were both done before Bristol the roof work at Temple Meads should be done by then. In contrast to Swansea or Bristol, doing Oxford/Banbury allows GWR to extend at least one of the class 387-operated semi-fasts each hour from Didcot to Oxford/Banbury (I'm unsure if the other one is able to wait at Didcot while it is overtaken by the InterCity service or if it has to get out of the way) and doing Reading-Basingstoke should allow EMUs to replace whatever DMUs GWR uses on that shuttle.

I guess if you've wired Didcot-Banbury and Reading-Basingstoke but Swansea, Bristol and Coventry aren't ready for the wires yet another option might be to extend the wires from Newbury to Merehead and Whatley quarries. After all, it will need doing eventually, and GWR would be able to extend the Reading-Newbury EMU stoppers to Westbury and get rid of the Newbury-Bedwyn shuttles.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Meanwhile the 1203 Padd to Penzance is 2 x 5s

Wrong, the 12.03 PAD to PNZ is booked a 9 car set, yes from time to time is can appear as a 10 car when a 9 car is unavailable but there are no plans to change the booked formation from 9 cars. As the busiest West Country service when a 9 is unavailable this is focussed as a 10 as being a better substitute than a 9 car.

Not sure what your issue is here? When was the last time this service was shortformed as a 5 car?

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 19/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 19/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 16/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 16/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[irish_rail]

Wrong, the 12.03 PAD to PNZ is booked a 9 car set, yes from time to time is can appear as a 10 car when a 9 car is unavailable but there are no plans to change the booked formation from 9 cars. As the busiest West Country service when a 9 is unavailable this is focussed as a 10 as being a better substitute than a 9 car.

Not sure what your issue is here? When was the last time this service was shortformed as a 5 car?

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 19/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 19/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 16/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 16/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

No, it's been booked a 10 since Spetember, certainly shows as 802 (10) on all traincrew diagrams, and almost always in my experience has been a 10 car since September. Really not sure why they have changed it as such.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2023 ==

Wrong, the 12.03 PAD to PNZ is booked a 9 car set, yes from time to time is can appear as a 10 car when a 9 car is unavailable but there are no plans to change the booked formation from 9 cars. As the busiest West Country service when a 9 is unavailable this is focussed as a 10 as being a better substitute than a 9 car.

Not sure what your issue is here? When was the last time this service was shortformed as a 5 car?

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 19/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 19/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1203 London Paddington to Penzance | 16/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 1203 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 16/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

On Monday for example it was a 9 but only because it was set swapped as the booked 10 car set was late incoming.

 

[jimm]

However, I did put Oxford first and Basingstoke and Coventry in the same batch of schemes as Bristol. If Reading-Basingstoke and Didcot-Coventry were both done before Bristol the roof work at Temple Meads should be done by then. In contrast to Swansea or Bristol, doing Oxford/Banbury allows GWR to extend at least one of the class 387-operated semi-fasts each hour from Didcot to Oxford/Banbury (I'm unsure if the other one is able to wait at Didcot while it is overtaken by the InterCity service or if it has to get out of the way) and doing Reading-Basingstoke should allow EMUs to replace whatever DMUs GWR uses on that shuttle.

GWR does not run anything near hourly most of the day between Oxford and Banbury - indeed there's a three-hour gap in the late morning up to lunchtime and two hours after that - and there are no plans for it to run more trains as off-peak traffic at the intermediate stations is limited and XC's services cover the Oxford-Banbury flow. So any use of Class 387s there, should it ever become possible, would be little more than incidental in the scheme of things.

And the county council and other interested parties are far more interested in extending any wiring scheme for Didcot-Oxford and associated 387 services out to Hanborough on the Cotwold Line - both to reduce shunt moves around Oxford station but also to further boost Hanborough's role as a rail park-and ride site for the Eynsham/Woodstock/Witney area, by providing a near 'walk-up' service frequency.

Any wiring between Oxford and Banbury and beyond is going to depend on a sea change in attitudes in the Government, allowing a coherent plan to be developed for rolling stock replacement at XC and Chiltern and freight traction decarbonisation on the Southampton container services - but as this is Britain, I won't be expecting anything of the sort to happen.

 

[Annetts key]

Ah; I didn't realise that there was work ongoing on the roof at Bristol Temple Meads. I assume from your wording that this work has at least started though -

Oh yes, it’s been ongoing for a long while…
This is a recent photo:

And this was from July 2021: