Class 175s to GWR

[class ep-09]

A great move for these 175s is definitely Cardiff/Plymouth - Penzance, this would release a number of 800s off to help the London services and can easily keep to timing schedules. I would say these are quicker off the mark and quicker to speed than an IET!

If anything , only if 800’s are in diesel .
If in electric mode 175 has no chance.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If anything , only if 800’s are in diesel .
If in electric mode 175 has no chance.

Mind you, 175s will not operate where 800s can on electricity.

 

[jayah]

How do you mean? Northern run all manner of ‘multiple formations of diesel units’ every day of the week. GWR/FGW, as well as Northern, have successfully operated DMUs reformed from their original formations for years. Or do you simply mean using units of differing lengths over the same route?!

Reliably delivering a plan where multiple couples units are involved.

A TOC like Thameslink could run 99% of the planned service, but a TOC that plans a 5 car 175 will only deliver a 5 car 175 about 80% of the time, if you are lucky.

 

[simonmpoulton]

They accelerate well i'd say - I was on a 175 out of Manchester Piccadilly many years ago and we raced a First Transpennine 185 out. Obviously the 185 won in the end but we kept up with it for a bit!

 

[FGW_DID]

Indeed, but they still run too often.

Perhaps you would rather have nothing and prefer to moan about cancellations!

 

[Goldfish62]

Transpennine Express, Scotrail, Southern… Central Trains even! Just to name a few operators who have reliably delivered multiple DMU formations over long periods. The key is maintaining reliability of the couplers and not having excessive amounts of reforming of sets over the day etc.

And of course SWR, who happen to have the most reliable fleet of diesel units in the country and which are regularly run in up to 9-coach formations.

 

[sh24]

And of course SWR, who happen to have the most reliable fleet of diesel units in the country and which are regularly run in up to 9-coach formations.

And with a moderate amount of reforming during the day too.

 

[Goldfish62]

And with a moderate amount of reforming during the day too.

Very much so!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

And with a moderate amount of reforming during the day too.

Performing the bulk of it roughly 200m from the dedicated depot at Salisbury means there is ready technical assistance whenever something goes awry, and most likely spare units too. Not many routes are blessed with that convenience of course!

 

[Goldfish62]

To those who don't want the 175s to go to GWR, what's your proposed solution for GWR's chronic rolling stock shortage? A solution that can be quickly implemented?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

To those who don't want the 175s to go to GWR, what's your proposed solution for GWR's chronic rolling stock shortage? A solution that can be quickly implemented?

Yes, they are undoubtedly the best option right now. They’re also fantastic trains, in my opinion, and I’m sure locals will love them.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, they are undoubtedly the best option right now. They’re also fantastic trains, in my opinion, and I’m sure locals will love them.

I'm certainly looking forward to travelling on them in Cornwall.

 

[Express380]

I'm certainly looking forward to travelling on them in Cornwall.

I agree it's going to be great to have them down here

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, they are undoubtedly the best option right now. They’re also fantastic trains, in my opinion, and I’m sure locals will love them.

They are about the only option right now, and probably for next few months too.

I would guess some ex TfW 158s will be available in about 6-15 months, and 222s from EMR in about 15-24 months, and if SWR is serious about converting some 450s into BEMUs there might be some 159s in 20-40 months. Might be something from Northern in 50-70 months too.

The potential project Churchward fleet is about 60-90 months away, and with some GWR lines having grown around 20% in 12 months, have to consider the possibility of that growth rate continuing, and 20% per year over 5 years is double. Going to need just about mentioned above if growth continues at 20% per year on some lines in the west.

 

[Mollman]

They are about the only option right now, and probably for next few months too.

I would guess some ex TfW 158s will be available in about 6-15 months, and 222s from EMR in about 15-24 months, and if SWR is serious about converting some 450s into BEMUs there might be some 159s in 20-40 months. Might be something from Northern in 50-70 months too.

The potential project Churchward fleet is about 60-90 months away, and with some GWR lines having grown around 20% in 12 months, have to consider the possibility of that growth rate continuing, and 20% per year over 5 years is double. Going to need just about mentioned above if growth continues at 20% per year on some lines in the west.

Northern are talking about the end of the decade before Sprinters are replaced so even 158s will be at the end of their serviceable lives. The 769s might be released earlier

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given the large net increase in vehicles represented by the 175s, I'm sure there will be enough to suitably replace IETs. They will operate in up to 5 car formation in their new homes as 2, 3, 4 and 5 cars as necessary.

I very much like the 175s, but they have never reliably run in double formation.
A good day is when a 3-car turns up rather than a 2-car.
FNW, ATW and TfW all wanted 4/5/6-car operation but never got it reliably.
The fleet availability was also too low for multiple working to be other than a luxury, except where it was essential so that trains could split en route.

 

[brad465]

I very much like the 175s, but they have never reliably run in double formation.
A good day is when a 3-car turns up rather than a 2-car.
FNW, ATW and TfW all wanted 4/5/6-car operation but never got it reliably.
The fleet availability was also too low for multiple working to be other than a luxury, except where it was essential so that trains could split en route.

Will double formations be absolutely necessary on the routes they do? Maybe on the Tarka line in particularly busy times (which does see some 4-car diagrams), but Okehampton may manage on 2/3 car (unless the new station adds relatively huge demand) and possibly down to Penzance too with the support of the London services being longer in addition. How busy are the Castle HST diagrams (being 4-car) these days?

 

[GoneSouth]

To those who don't want the 175s to go to GWR, what's your proposed solution for GWR's chronic rolling stock shortage? A solution that can be quickly implemented?

I’ve only had the pleasure a couple of times but far superior to a knackered, noisy, draughty, uncomfortable and show 150 which have turned up on the south west routes too often for my taste!

If there is anyone who really doesn’t want them, give them a chance, you’ll be pleasantly surprised

 

[Lurcheroo]

Will double formations be absolutely necessary on the routes they do? Maybe on the Tarka line in particularly busy times (which does see some 4-car diagrams), but Okehampton may manage on 2/3 car (unless the new station adds relatively huge demand) and possibly down to Penzance too with the support of the London services being longer in addition. How busy are the Castle HST diagrams (being 4-car) these days?

But that is surely down to diagramming and fleet availability, not due to the 175’s themselves.

Flexibility to operate in formations between 2 and 6 coaches should provide GWR the ability to more accurately concentrate capacity too.
Such as if the castles sets are running services which don’t need more than a 3 car 175 that frees up an extra coach to be placed elsewhere.

 

[craigybagel]

I very much like the 175s, but they have never reliably run in double formation.
A good day is when a 3-car turns up rather than a 2-car.
FNW, ATW and TfW all wanted 4/5/6-car operation but never got it reliably.
The fleet availability was also too low for multiple working to be other than a luxury, except where it was essential so that trains could split en route.

The only issue with 175s and multiple working at their previous home was there wasn't enough of them to allow it to happen more often. I don't know what GWR's plans are, but if it involves diagramming 175s in multiple it should be absolutely fine, they cope perfectly well in multiple.

 

[Caaardiff]

I very much like the 175s, but they have never reliably run in double formation.
A good day is when a 3-car turns up rather than a 2-car.
FNW, ATW and TfW all wanted 4/5/6-car operation but never got it reliably.
The fleet availability was also too low for multiple working to be other than a luxury, except where it was essential so that trains could split en route.

That's not correct.
The only diagrammed multiple 175's under ATW/TFW were peak time services from Chester to Manchester. One in the morning and one in the evening. Otherwise any other services operated in multiples were down to getting maintenance units back or strengthening for events.
There were never really any issues in multiple on the peak time services from Chester.

The only reason there weren't more multiple services, as others have stated, is because there simple weren't enough 175s to do it. The fleet availability was generally quite good, with usually 3 or 4 stopped per day the majority of the time. IIRC when it was 4 it was down to the refurbishments.

 

[DelW]

They are about the only option right now, and probably for next few months too.

Northern are talking about the end of the decade before Sprinters are replaced so even 158s will be at the end of their serviceable lives. The 769s might be released earlier

Well, GWR's own unused fleet of 769s is still (mostly) sitting in storage, but it seems to have been decided that their reliability is too suspect for them to be used. At some point their owning ROSCO will presumably either have to improve their appeal or scrap them. But they are still nominally an alternative or supplement to the 175s.

 

[Towers]

Well, GWR's own unused fleet of 769s is still (mostly) sitting in storage, but it seems to have been decided that their reliability is too suspect for them to be used. At some point their owning ROSCO will presumably either have to improve their appeal or scrap them. But they are still nominally an alternative or supplement to the 175s.

The 769s were returned to provide cost savings demanded by the DfT, I believe.

 

[Bikeman78]

Perhaps you would rather have nothing and prefer to moan about cancellations!

No, people would rather the depot turned out the agreed number of three car units.

 

[Anonymous10]

The fleet isn't large enough, there is failures. There is nothing that the maintenance teams can do about that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The fleet isn't large enough, there is failures. There is nothing that the maintenance teams can do about that.

There will be a contract with CAF specifying reliability, with penalty clauses if it is too low.
It just needs enforcing (compensation etc), but nobody wants to talk about that.
The 197 fleet is large enough, especially with some capacity being taken off with the Mk4 fleet which was not intended when the 197 order was placed.
It's a project management problem.

 

[FGW_DID]

No, people would rather the depot turned out the agreed number of three car units.

Which would be a reasonable expectation, why is there a 2 car being used when it should be a three car?

The fleet isn't large enough, there is failures. There is nothing that the maintenance teams can do about that.

Exactly this.

Apologies for the thread drift but perhaps an explanation as to why shortforming occurs may help the understanding.
Let’s take the fleet in question, (apologies, not the 175 fleet but one that has also been mentioned in this thread), it consists of 24 DMUs, 12x 3 cars and 12x 2 cars. On a daily basis (Mon-Fri) there are 10 of each type required for service.
That leaves two of each “spare”.
However you also have to take into account the scheduled maintenance regime (B exams, component changes etc) plus of course there may be units away at works or indeed stopped and unavailable for traffic for a multitude of reasons. That soon eats into your 4 “spares”.

Take today for example:
2 cars: 10 in traffic, 1 at Wolverton, 1x B Exam = 12
3 cars: 10 in traffic, 1x B Exam, 1x Tyre Turning = 12

No spare at all. Any failures will result in cancellation

The next day might be different:
2 cars: 10 sent into service as booked, 1 at Wolverton, 1x Spare = 12
3 cars: 10 sent out as booked, 2x B Exam = 12

1x spare 2 car available.

Should a 3 car be failed and brought out of traffic, the only available spare resource is the 2 car.

I would like to think that any reasonable controller would accept the 2 car to plug the gap and keep the service going.

One option open to them may be taking another 3 car off another line (Y) to use on (X) and using the 2 car on (Y) but in reality it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul and customers on line (Y) could rightly complain about their services being shortformed.

 

[Anonymous10]

There will be a contract with CAF specifying reliability, with penalty clauses if it is too low.
It just needs enforcing (compensation etc), but nobody wants to talk about that.
The 197 fleet is large enough, especially with some capacity being taken off with the Mk4 fleet which was not intended when the 197 order was placed.
It's a project management problem.

What do caf have to do with the subject of gwr 16x reliability?

 

[GoneSouth]

No, people would rather the depot turned out the agreed number of three car units.

That they don’t have?

 

[Snow1964]

Which would be a reasonable expectation, why is there a 2 car being used when it should be a three car?

Exactly this.

Apologies for the thread drift but perhaps an explanation as to why shortforming occurs may help the understanding.
Let’s take the fleet in question, (apologies, not the 175 fleet but one that has also been mentioned in this thread), it consists of 24 DMUs, 12x 3 cars and 12x 2 cars. On a daily basis (Mon-Fri) there are 10 of each type required for service.
That leaves two of each “spare”.
However you also have to take into account the scheduled maintenance regime (B exams, component changes etc) plus of course there may be units away at works or indeed stopped and unavailable for traffic for a multitude of reasons. That soon eats into your 4 “spares”.

Take today for example:
2 cars: 10 in traffic, 1 at Wolverton, 1x B Exam = 12
3 cars: 10 in traffic, 1x B Exam, 1x Tyre Turning = 12

No spare at all. Any failures will result in cancellation

The next day might be different:
2 cars: 10 sent into service as booked, 1 at Wolverton, 1x Spare = 12
3 cars: 10 sent out as booked, 2x B Exam = 12

1x spare 2 car available.

Should a 3 car be failed and brought out of traffic, the only available spare resource is the 2 car.

I would like to think that any reasonable controller would accept the 2 car to plug the gap and keep the service going.

One option open to them may be taking another 3 car off another line (Y) to use on (X) and using the 2 car on (Y) but in reality it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul and customers on line (Y) could rightly complain about their services being shortformed.

A long explanation of the make do mentality, without considering why ended up in that situation.

Unfortunately no attempt to explain why insufficient spares are in the fleet (or if there is a fixed quantity of units, why someone has over diagrammed them (too many diagrams for quantity) so on some days they cannot find enough because of repairs and works visits.

Quite simply in your example if on one day each fortnight can only muster 9 (not 10) out of 12 then the problem is direct result of the choice to over stretch the fleet. We are not talking a freak event when excess units are unexpectedly out of service, but a regular every few days occurrence. If it happens more than handful of days each year then clearly expectations about availability are misplaced, and need revising.

And of course the older the units, or how non standard they are, also increases the number of parts needed, and if parts are slow to obtain (due to obsolescence) the higher the proportion can be expected to be out of use, so need to diagram less.

Ultimately if reoccuring and not being changed, someone in control or maintenance is not doing strong enough feedback so it gets looked at and changed.