Class 175s to GWR

[Clarence Yard]

Scotrail don’t have to go through the DfT/Treasury approval process.

There always has been a degree of DfT control over rolling stock but it has definitely got worse since COVID because not leasing rolling stock or authorising overhauls is a decent saving when it comes to meeting the DfT rail budget.

You have a real job to persuade the DfT to authorise the expenditure.

 

[Brush 4]

I trust all this nonsense will be history when GBR take over or, what will be the point of it? Unless the rail industry has control over expenditure under GBR, the whole thing is a waste of time and money, again. Integration and coherent planning is needed.

 

[Goldfish62]

I trust all this nonsense will be history when GBR take over or, what will be the point of it? Unless the rail industry has control over expenditure under GBR, the whole thing is a waste of time and money, again. Integration and coherent planning is needed.

Completely agree.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That is true, but there must be some sort of problem at railways end, with their ability to convince DfT, that delay beyond a certain date, or do nothing will be a much more expensive option because massive costs will be incurred if temporary/interim solutions are needed.

However, in this case delaying the decision hasn’t bought massive costs.

 

[3RDGEN]

I trust all this nonsense will be history when GBR take over or, what will be the point of it? Unless the rail industry has control over expenditure under GBR, the whole thing is a waste of time and money, again. Integration and coherent planning is needed.

The DfT/Treasury will set GBR budget and appoint those running GBR so nothing will change since neither the DfT/Treasury trust the rail industry to work to budgets or timescales, it was just the same under BR. GBR will probably be worse than the last 20+ years since its budget can be cut at the drop of a hat if times get tough whereas the franchises had legal contracts with the DfT that had to be funded.

Just to get back to the 175's the DfT/Treasury signed off on GWR losing 16 passenger vehicles and gaining 68 so GWR will see a 52 vehicle increase once the deployment is completed. That increase has to be paid for and it's the DfT/Treasury that will need to find that money.

Had there been a cohesive, national, rolling stock strategy (again, see DfT), the 175s might have not been allowed to be parked up and go cold and might just have been ready to enter service before the HSTs were withdrawn. Instead - time, pain and effort is being used to do this retrospectively.

I don't believe the DfT or GWR ever wanted the 175's, they would have been waiting for the TfW 158's to be released which would have been a far better option. With the 158's not being released the 175's became the only other option for GWR to replace the last HST's, extra units for new services and provide some extra capacity to fill the gap until new trains arrive.

 

[Snow1964]

Just to get back to the 175's the DfT/Treasury signed off on GWR losing 16 passenger vehicles and gaining 68 so GWR will see a 52 vehicle increase once the deployment is completed. That increase has to be paid for and it's the DfT/Treasury that will need to find that money.

Rather depends on how selective you want to be with numbers, DfT also took away some 387s and stopped the just about to be introduced 769s when Covid hit over 6 years ago. They then didn't replace the unit damaged in Salisbury crash either. If include these these then get a cut, not net +52

Even if stick to using 52 vehicles, that represents few percent of a fleet of hundreds of vehicles, and is much smaller than the growth rate of dozens of GWR stations. The station usage figures issued 5 months ago show lots busier (in non electrified GWR region) than pre-Covid, with many growing at 8+% per year. I think some routes are running 15-25% above pre-covid numbers, so the 175 introduction barely covers 6 months growth in some local areas.

 

[43096]

Rather depends on how selective you want to be with numbers, DfT also took away some 387s and stopped the just about to be introduced 769s when Covid hit over 6 years ago. They then didn't replace the unit damaged in Salisbury crash either. If include these these then get a cut, not net +52

Even if stick to using 52 vehicles, that represents few percent of a fleet of hundreds of vehicles, and is much smaller than the growth rate of dozens of GWR stations. The station usage figures issued 5 months ago show lots busier (in non electrified GWR region) than pre-Covid, with many growing at 8+% per year. I think some routes are running 15-25% above pre-covid numbers, so the 175 introduction barely covers 6 months growth in some local areas.

You can add in the complete "Castle" HST fleet as that was cut in advance of the 175 project. Total loss of vehicles is:
16 x 4-car HST = 64 vehicles
15 x 4-car 387s = 60 vehicles (the 12 HEx sets were in the GWR pool)
19 x 4-car 769s = 76 vehicles
Total reduction = 200 vehicles

So the 175s don't even offset the loss of the 769s.

 

[John R]

Rather depends on how selective you want to be with numbers, DfT also took away some 387s and stopped the just about to be introduced 769s when Covid hit over 6 years ago. They then didn't replace the unit damaged in Salisbury crash either. If include these these then get a cut, not net +52

Even if stick to using 52 vehicles, that represents few percent of a fleet of hundreds of vehicles, and is much smaller than the growth rate of dozens of GWR stations. The station usage figures issued 5 months ago show lots busier (in non electrified GWR region) than pre-Covid, with many growing at 8+% per year. I think some routes are running 15-25% above pre-covid numbers, so the 175 introduction barely covers 6 months growth in some local areas.

Having said that, an addition to the regional fleet (effectively) from the pre-COVID situation is the use of Class 800s for the Cardiff to West Country services, at the expense of the introduction of the fast Bristol to Paddington services. (Albeit those don't now go all the way to Penzance, which they did a couple of years ago.)

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Rather depends on how selective you want to be with numbers, DfT also took away some 387s and stopped the just about to be introduced 769s when Covid hit over 6 years ago. They then didn't replace the unit damaged in Salisbury crash either. If include these these then get a cut, not net +52

Even if stick to using 52 vehicles, that represents few percent of a fleet of hundreds of vehicles, and is much smaller than the growth rate of dozens of GWR stations. The station usage figures issued 5 months ago show lots busier (in non electrified GWR region) than pre-Covid, with many growing at 8+% per year. I think some routes are running 15-25% above pre-covid numbers, so the 175 introduction barely covers 6 months growth in some local areas.

Afraid your numbers are slightly out there for the non-electrified region. The fast Paddington - Bristol Parkway/Bristol TM services were taken out and the IETs displaced taking over from HSTs and Turbos on many Bristol - Worcester and Cardiff - Exeter workings.

So it’s not actually been a net cut.

 

[Razorblades]

Can anyone clarify what the residual HST duties were/ are that are being picked-up by 175s, please? I'm attempting to piece together the expected services and frequencies that 20 from the 26-strong Coradia fleet will be operating in steady-state (theoretically at least!). I've checked the Diagrams part of the forum but can't see what I would like. T-I-A.

 

[REVUpminster]

Two will be required for Okehampton, Three for Barnstaple plus a 2 car for a 5 car train. That's six of the 20 units required (5x3car+ 1 2car??). The 158s will be gone.
It looks like one is going to be used on Newquay
Exeter/Plymouth will depend on the length of train needed.
Local and regional services in Devon and Cornwall serving Exeter, Okehampton, Barnstaple, Exmouth, Paignton, Plymouth, Newquay, Falmouth and Penzance will see them at some time. Paignton-Exmouth will probably see them by default when turbos or 150s not available.

 

[Brush 4]

Is all the above from May 17 onwards or, phased in over a longer timespan?

 

[REVUpminster]

Is all the above from May 17 onwards or, phased in over a longer timespan?

Must be a longer time span as they can't let the 158s go until they have enough 175s. Improvements elsewhere will have to wait.

 

[Snow1964]

Must be a longer time span as they can't let the 158s go until they have enough 175s. Improvements elsewhere will have to wait.

not so much a case of improvements elsewhere waiting, it is other services being temporarily shortened due to 175 introduction delays, as fleet is too stretched in meantime.

The slow 175 introduction has meant other units are being worked harder, so there is the inevitable problem of more maintenance and repairs, which eventually overwealms the ability to keep them all serviceable.

Last month there were over 300 GWR services cancelled because more trains than usual needed repair. Averaging over 10 per day.

eg today's 1F09 Cardiff-Portsmouth down to 2cars, and many other Cardiff-Portsmouth just 3cars

 

[fgwrich]

not so much a case of improvements elsewhere waiting, it is other services being temporarily shortened due to 175 introduction delays, as fleet is too stretched in meantime.

The slow 175 introduction has meant other units are being worked harder, so there is the inevitable problem of more maintenance and repairs, which eventually overwealms the ability to keep them all serviceable.

Last month there were over 300 GWR services cancelled because more trains than usual needed repair. Averaging over 10 per day.

eg today's 1F09 Cardiff-Portsmouth down to 2cars, and many other Cardiff-Portsmouth just 3cars

Just another day in the West Fleet sadly, which has been somewhat stretched ever since the aborted 769 program was to free up Turbos to free up 150s and 158s. The short HSTs provided some relief at least being 4 cars.

 

[RPI]

Is all the above from May 17 onwards or, phased in over a longer timespan?

No, the 175's onto Okehampton/Barnstaple will be late summer at the earliest for full introduction.
There were mumblings about wanting the Okehampton done for when the new station opens, but I think that looks highly unlikely.

Without wanting to jinx it, it appears that the soft introduction was the right thing as the the units do seem overall to be settling down a bit now, as has been said before, being sat out in the open for two years not used doesn't do them any good, a sustained period now of doors cycling and crews getting used to their... "Quirks" will hopefully now see the reliability increase gradually.

I've worked on a few of them, and the passengers generally do like them, many have commented on how they're more comfortable than the "big" trains!

 

[REVUpminster]

If they delay the opening of Okehampton Interchange because fears a 2 car 150 might not cope, and it might not, is bad news.

GWR record on "improvements" is not good. Torquay lifts, Edginswell station, Newton Abbot new entrance all with planning permission never built. Some tarting up outside Paignton station due to start in the autumn paid for by the council with various grants.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If they delay the opening of Okehampton Interchange because fears a 2 car 150 might not cope, and it might not, is bad news.

It both is and it isn't. Obviously an overcrowded service formed of seemingly inadequate length rolling stock is not a good look.

However -- if the 150 cannot cope -- it proves skeptical people like me, who believe Okehampton shuttles to be a scandalous waste of two 3 car 175s -- wrong. It shows they made the right decision building it and that it's clearly got demand/is a useful station and service.

The lack of rolling stock is of course an issue, but there's scope for it to be lengthened when more trains become available, whereas the opposite situation of a completely empty station served by long trains carrying fresh air, would just be an irreversible waste of money.

 

[Brush 4]

I don't think any station is ever completely empty..... Denton perhaps

 

[Razorblades]

Am I correct in assuming that 175s won't be cleared to work the St Ives, Looe and Gunnislake branches?

 

[fgwrich]

Am I correct in assuming that 175s won't be cleared to work the St Ives, Looe and Gunnislake branches?

Correct, class 175 vehicles are too long for both the Looe and Gunnislake branches. The exception to that was always single car class 153s which were allowed on their own but not in multiple due to several tight curves along both lines, and how the curves interact with the couplers / corridor arrangements. Calstock on the Gunnislake branch is a perfect example of high tight some of those curves are, and can feel tight in a 20m bar coupled class 150.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Correct, class 175 vehicles are too long for both the Looe and Gunnislake branches. The exception to that was always single car class 153s which were allowed on their own but not in multiple due to several tight curves along both lines, and how the curves interact with the couplers / corridor arrangements. Calstock on the Gunnislake branch is a perfect example of high tight some of those curves are, and can feel tight in a 20m bar coupled class 150.

It will be interesting looking to how they tackle those branches in the coming years then.

 

[brad465]

Am I correct in assuming that 175s won't be cleared to work the St Ives, Looe and Gunnislake branches?

We know they're cleared to work the first 100 yards of the Looe branch from Liskeard

It will be interesting looking to how they tackle those branches in the coming years then.

I imagine the new fleet order they're preparing will have a standard design that allows the units to operate anywhere on GWR turf, including those branches.

 

[RPI]

Am I correct in assuming that 175s won't be cleared to work the St Ives, Looe and Gunnislake branches?

I'm pretty sure they're going to be cleared for St Ives, if not already, 158's are cleared for St Ives.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2026 ==

It both is and it isn't. Obviously an overcrowded service formed of seemingly inadequate length rolling stock is not a good look.

However -- if the 150 cannot cope -- it proves skeptical people like me, who believe Okehampton shuttles to be a scandalous waste of two 3 car 175s -- wrong. It shows they made the right decision building it and that it's clearly got demand/is a useful station and service.

The lack of rolling stock is of course an issue, but there's scope for it to be lengthened when more trains become available, whereas the opposite situation of a completely empty station served by long trains carrying fresh air, would just be an irreversible waste of money.

Okehampton does have some trains that are full and standing as it is, admittedly only during peak time.

 

[Goldfish62]

Am I correct in assuming that 175s won't be cleared to work the St Ives, Looe and Gunnislake branches?

They weren't including on GWR's map of routes where they'd be cleared published in Modern Railways recently.

 

[northernbelle]

If they delay the opening of Okehampton Interchange because fears a 2 car 150 might not cope, and it might not, is bad news.

GWR record on "improvements" is not good. Torquay lifts, Edginswell station, Newton Abbot new entrance all with planning permission never built. Some tarting up outside Paignton station due to start in the autumn paid for by the council with various grants.

I don't think that's fair actually - in the Devon Metro area alone we've seen:

• New stations at Newcourt, Marsh Barton and soon Okehampton Interchange
• Step free access completed at Dawlish
• Reopening of the Okehampton line
• Introduction of half-hourly timetable between Exeter and Paignton
• Introduction of hourly Barnstaple line timetable
• Introduction of hourly Dawlish/Teignmouth calls from Plymouth

I think GWR's record for "improvements" is actually quite significant in this area - go back to ten years ago and look at the timetable, you'll see what I mean.

It will be interesting looking to how they tackle those branches in the coming years then.

I'm told that 23m vehicles can be modified to operate over such curves, subject to intermediate coupling modifications which basically push the vehicles further away from each other. The actual answer for the future isn't known as yet though.

 

[fgwrich]

I don't think that's fair actually - in the Devon Metro area alone we've seen:

• New stations at Newcourt, Marsh Barton and soon Okehampton Interchange
• Step free access completed at Dawlish
• Reopening of the Okehampton line
• Introduction of half-hourly timetable between Exeter and Paignton
• Introduction of hourly Barnstaple line timetable
• Introduction of hourly Dawlish/Teignmouth calls from Plymouth

I think GWR's record for "improvements" is actually quite significant in this area - go back to ten years ago and look at the timetable, you'll see what I mean.

I agree, whilst people like to beat GWR with the Privatisation is Bad, Nationalisation is good stick, FGW & laterally GWRs record across the south west cannot be underestimated. Yes, of course there is further improvements to push for, but what we’ve seen so far beats that of various other operators in their respective areas, and now in some cases it’s only the lack of available rolling stock that limits available capacity.

 

[Snow1964]

It will be interesting looking to how they tackle those branches in the coming years then.

Maybe with articulated units like the flirts, with shorter intermediate vehicles and Jacob's style bogies

 

[BillStampy]

Has 175112 been rescued from Penzance? Ran into problems yesterday before working 2P21 and was stabled in the platform, supposedly.

 

[GoneSouth]

I agree, whilst people like to beat GWR with the Privatisation is Bad, Nationalisation is good stick, FGW & laterally GWRs record across the south west cannot be underestimated. Yes, of course there is further improvements to push for, but what we’ve seen so far beats that of various other operators in their respective areas, and now in some cases it’s only the lack of available rolling stock that limits available capacity.

I also agree, more widely they introduced the hourly Worcester to Bristol which also helped double to 2tph Glouc to Bristol, doubled the Reading to Gatwick to 2tph, added the Didcot electric services, introduced battery trains and made better, more intensive use of their IET fleet than they get credit for. I’d be interested to see their passenger numbers across all routes in GWR land compared to 10 year’s ago. Oh, and the staff are great, complete contrast with being shouted at in Manchester by Northern staff.