At the end of the day, Sprinters are life expired and should have been retired already. Keeping them alive is very poor value for money and even this cannot keep their availability high enough. The Express Sprinters are near as poor now, and in just a couple of years will be in the same position. Other operators have handled that by dropping their utilisation right back, but GWR appear not to be in any position to do this. The Coradias are at least partially an answer, but just as everyone said, it takes a long while for them to be brought back from store and moved into a position where there are enough of them available every day to help.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
GWR 'Project Churchward'
- Thread starter heathrowrail
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
brad465
Veteran Member
I'm waiting to see if any announcement comes with the nationalisation of GWR at the end of this year. Given the reports that a combined order with Chiltern and SWR is being considered, by mid-December all three TOCs will have been nationalised, so logically this would be when to announce it. If no announcement has come by then, then goodness knows what the plan is (if there even is a plan).
By December, there will probably be an new PM which will probably also mean a new transport secretary, so it's anyone's guess what will happen.
That coupled with the classic UK trait of short term thinking really doesn't look good, the longer they leave it, the more expensive new trains and maintenance of old trains gets.
Whoever is the minister for whatever, the schedule fits that following nationalisation the combined order for all three operators (or GBR Subdivisions, or whatever they end up being called) would be announced.
brad465
Veteran Member
If it's fairly well-advanced behind the scenes there may not be much difference. Assuming Burnham is the new PM though, depending on who his Transport Secretary is, I can see him fast-tracking Northern's proposed fleet order, given his bias towards that area and he can sell "investment in the north", which could come at the expense of the GWR and co. timeline.
Both things need doing, but there's less obvious reason to delay on the northern one
Snow1964
Established Member
Of course in the nationalised railway world, it's questionable if GWR needs a fundamentally different design of train to northern. Or if they could simply add say 100 options to order, and use standard design for both.
If it is better to have order the local trains, and other the regional trains from different manufacturer, or better for each to have one manufacturer even if they then have both local/urban and regional variants is question for others. My gut feeling is any order under about 70 trains or 200 vehicles (even if available to multiple operators) is too non-standard and should be avoided.
On the other hand, one of the things being protested about in this and other threads about new train orders is that they are needed urgently. Going to one manufacturer could delay introduction depending on how the order is spread across different operations. The 158 introduction took almost four years, with the South West getting theirs last. Would something similar happen now if one supplier delivered all the new trains needed?
stevieinselby
Established Member
I can't see any reason why a replacement for the 150, 158, 165 and 166s on GWR and a replacement for the 150, 155, 156 and 158s on Northern would have noticeably different requirements. There may be a case to argue that some of the routes GWR run are longer, higher profile and need a higher calibre of train than anything on the Northern network – but those routes could continue using 175s for a while before they need replacing. So whatever is suitable for Northern should be equally suitable for GWR, with a similar mix of suburban, rural secondary routes and branch lines. The question might then be whether Northern is prioritised for getting its replacements first and GWR having to wait until all of Northern's units were delivered, or perhaps more sensibly doing Northern's 150s then GWR's 150s and working through them that way.
Anonymous10
Established Member
Perhaps even sending the best northern 150s to gwr land to act as either donors or spares.
It's likely though that the order for GWR/ SWR/ Chiltern will be enough for one supplier to be getting on with, and the Northern order could go elsewhere. And the UK has more than one train factory that's likely to need more work.
Yes, there's no real need for them to be different, but nor is there any particular reason for them to be the same.
The obvious reasons for them to be the same would be economies of scale over construction and spare parts, only having to deal with one lease company, and being able to redistribute the units to accommodate different demand peaks. A fleet of 500 identical trains could go some way to cutting the railway's costs.
But it might also mean a 10 year building program to get through them all. Two fleets of 250 each wouldn't have significantly reduced economies of scale. What you want to avoid is 40 fleets of 15 units or something.
I don't know what the order books look like, but there's Newport, Derby and Newton Aycliffe (maybe more?) to feed, and I don't see any government wanting to be on the hook for any of those closing.
Snow1964
Established Member
The potential problem is not these assembly locations, but that each of them buys components from a limited number of suppliers. And if they are missing parts, they cannot finish building the train.
In the last 6 months, a quick trawl of orders around Europe shows over 3000 carriages (mainly EMUs and BEMUs, but some multi-mode trains) ordered for various European countries. Presumably components for these trains have since been ordered, logically the component factories now have much less (if any) spare capacity for months, maybe couple of years.
So whilst UK dithers, build capacity is being taken up. RENFE Spain has a tender for 30 +options high speed trains closing this week 23 June, Italo is rumoured to be signing contract with Siemens by end of June etc ..... More components needed, less unused factory capacity.
Even today, Sunday 21st June, order for motors for new CAF fleet for Oslo metro have been announced. Rest of Europe is gobbling up component build capacity
TSA electrifies Oslo with 240 motors for next generation of metro trains %
TSA - TSA electrifies Oslo with 240 motors for next generation of metro trains
tsa.at
RUK
Member
There’s also SIEMENS at Goole, which is building the 2024 Stock for the Piccadilly line, and presumably will have to get a small order of around 40-42 trains for the Bakerloo line after that, if TfL can get the funding for that, but they have no confirmed orders or funding for the rest of the framework order for around 100 trains for the Central line and around 10 trains for the Waterloo and City line after that, or for anything else. The Bakerloo may need more trains if it’s extended, but the prospect of that seems to be decades off.
anthony263
Established Member
Tfl.got the funding for the bakerloo fleet i believe a deal should be announced later this year.
There's been rumours of a follow on order again for the central line.
Siemens also proposed finance for their new battery trains plau infrastructure
Snow1964
Established Member
Per latest TfL Board programmes and Investment Committee papers published ahead of next weeks meeting, section 8.3.1 on Bakerloo line upgrade (BLU)
So on face of it, 36 Bakerloo trains are already going ahead (even if order not yet formally announced), obviously uses up some capacity at Goole, which would obviously delay any GWR order (if and when it happens, although GWR order might not go to Siemens anyway)
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
Well, during peak Aventra production, Litchurch Lane was expected to build 25 vehicles per week. Quote below:
As to being on the hook for them closing.... its either that or be on the hook for keeping them open forever.
2,600 vehicles is comparable to the entire remaining pure diesel fleet, for reference. According to the ORR it stood at 2,868 vehicles on 31st March 2025.
EDIT: In the unified railway I think the logical thing is a single production line to sweep away pretty much all of the remaining diesels, although some more IEPs would be needed to replace those Voyager/Meridians that still need 125mph capability.
Indeed, although the crazy thing, due to the ridiculous number of 4 coach sets at XC, it's possible to have a mixed fleet of 5 and 9 coach IEP sets which increase capacity by 30% and still have fewer coaches than the current fleet.
Likewise, it's possible to free up GWR sets to be used at XC by extending a significant number of the 5 coach sets to 9 coaches and still retain some 5 coach sets whilst increasing the number of full length equivalent number of trains whilst, again, staying within the current GWR IEP coach count.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
It would probably be a lot cheaper to just order a full fleet direct for XC than to mess around with the IEP contract for the GWR IETs...?
Do GWR have IEP sets to spare?
Snow1964
Established Member
They have some services which are more regional, but use IETs because there is lack of regional bi-mode eg Cardiff-Exeter. Similarly if GWR had BEMUs probably wouldn't be using IETs to Oxford.
Even taking every 158, 166 and 175 in the fleet (and many 175s are not in service) they have too few regional DMUs to release IETs from non long distance services.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,577
If those IETs did get released then they would surely go to making sure london services aren't consistently short formed.
In your calculations for replacing 5+5 with 9, have you checked how many GWR services are scheduled for single cars? Is 69 (less spares) enough to fulfil all their diagrams?
In this you’ve removed trains from the 800 series which is part of the IEP contract, requiring them to do agreed miles, and most importantly return a fixed amount to certain locations each night.
Hitachi is unlikely to be a fan of the government trying to do this, rather than just ordering more trains, and you are entirely at their mercy once you start varying or breaking the contract.
Though it would be the result of an order for me vehicles, if I'm understanding correctly, so not like there's nothing in it for them.
Indeed, whilst the number of coaches at GWR would be the same (605), they are in a different configuration.
What it allows is 24 units to be transferred to run XC services and so increase capacity (even if they stay as 5 coach sets).
As such that's, as an absolute minimum, an order for of 120 new coaches.
To replace the full XC fleet would need a further 28 sets, ideally with a mix of 5 and 9 coaches, even with just 3 longer sets that's a further 152 new coaches (272+ new coaches), with the potential for a follow on order (say if XC unlocks growth by providing a higher level of seating per train and/or if GWR want to further grow their fleet and/or LNER wish to extend some of their sets to allow then to retire the Mark 4 coaches as well as to cater for additional growth).
That's likely to be quite an attractive proposition. However, the new fleet only has to match the 80x's in capacity and only needs to work work with them in service if they are 5 coach sets. As such it could be that if another provided the 9 coach sets (which ideally for fleet size would need to be 100 coaches worth, so 12 sets with 9 coaches, being 108 coaches).
Such an order would reduce that potential order from 152 to 80 (although more likely 188 to 80, if the XC fleet is getting 12 sets with 9 coaches.
Of course, if it's a case that the 9 coach sets are cheaper, it might bethat they are cheap enough to use them to relocate 39 of GWR's 5 coach sets to XC and replace with new 9 coach sets from another supplier. In such case Hitachi have no new coaches to build, which whilst they could be difficult over renegotiate the deal, they are likely to have messed up quite significantly to have lost the order for lengthening their sets so that they are left with just reallocate part of their fleet is all that's on the table.
Also, I'm lead to believe from what's been said that the diesel engines have been struggling to cope to provide the required number of services, if that's a cost risk to Hitachi (even ifit'snot an issue yet, it's a risk which maybe an issue in the future) then creating a hybrid fleet may help them out.
Short answer, no.
Although having asked AI it suggests 55 to 60 diagrams (due to seasonal variations) with around 1/2 being 5 coach sets.
Even taking the upper number and allowing 15% for spares and maintenance that's 69 units required, whilst that's higher than the 64.5 full length equivalent, the number of units does equal 69.
Now whilst that will mean more services run as 9 coach sets as opposed to single 5 coach sets, the cost for doing so is reduced compared to buying more 5 coach sets.
It's also likely to facilitate growth in passenger numbers and so it's got a reasonable chance of covering those extra costs.
It's also worth noting that there's been calls for more of the Devon and Cornwall services to be 9 coach sets rather than 5 coach sets on here. Whilst these might be from (say) the usual suspects, that doesn't mean that:
A) they are necessarily wrong
B) even IF they are, the cost of doing this is much reduced over other options (in that overall coach numbers stay the same) and so the risk is lower
Even if there's a need for a few more sets (so more than 9 sets with 5 coaches), all that means is that the order for GWR is a bit smaller and XC's order is a bit larger (I.e. if GWR have 9 more 5 coach sets, as opposed to 5 sets with 9 coaches and so don't order 20 of those new coaches, XC would then have to order 20 new coaches - but they might not need to be
Snow1964
Established Member
Seems the GWR regional replacement is now 7 years away based on corrosion and overhaul work on the 150s (already 39 years old) and 158s (34-36 years old).
DtFO (Department for Transport Operator) is apparently due to publish a national fleet strategy, sometime within next 6 months, and presumably no orders for new stock expected to be made before then.
GWR is currently using multiple types on its regional services, some lines have multiple types that can't be coupled so there is little operational flexibility
class 150 from 1987
class 158 from 1991-92
class 165 from 1990-92
class 166 from 1992-93
class 170 from 2000
class 387 from 2014-17
class 800 from 2014-18
class 802 from 2017-18
Last year GWR growth was 6% volume (8% revenue growth)
Clearly if wait 6 or 7 years for new stock, and growth continues at around 6% annually, they will need about 50% extra capacity since decision to add 175s. At moment unclear how this will be handled.
Sort of feels interim 175 plan has already been overtaken by growth
DtFO (Department for Transport Operator) is apparently due to publish a national fleet strategy, sometime within next 6 months, and presumably no orders for new stock expected to be made before then.
GWR is currently using multiple types on its regional services, some lines have multiple types that can't be coupled so there is little operational flexibility
class 150 from 1987
class 158 from 1991-92
class 165 from 1990-92
class 166 from 1992-93
class 170 from 2000
class 387 from 2014-17
class 800 from 2014-18
class 802 from 2017-18
Last year GWR growth was 6% volume (8% revenue growth)
Clearly if wait 6 or 7 years for new stock, and growth continues at around 6% annually, they will need about 50% extra capacity since decision to add 175s. At moment unclear how this will be handled.
Sort of feels interim 175 plan has already been overtaken by growth
REVUpminster
Established Member
GWR don't do anything unless someone else is paying for it. They could have extended the wires to Kintbury and Oxford but didn't.
Battery electrics have been pushed as they don't have to wire Temple Meads and some else will pay for the trains. Academic now with nationalisation.
Battery electrics have been pushed as they don't have to wire Temple Meads and some else will pay for the trains. Academic now with nationalisation.