Class 175s to GWR

[TastyMaltesers]

Was 010 not destined to become a spares donor?

 

[REVUpminster]

I think more than one train has been cannibalised. GWR say they have 15 175s but all the figures say 16 as does the Train database.

They only require 19 (the 19 769s) to run a full service and release the 158s. The other 7 are spares or local enhancements. 3+2 trains, 2+2.

Cannot see any 175s today.

 

[XFeed]

I believe 010 never actually went to Wolverton, and instead came down directly from Ely hauled by a couple of 37s.

From what I heard a few months ago it had still been untouched, not sure if that has changed now though?

I`ve just looked on BillStampys list and you are correct, arrived Jan 26.

Why have a unit at a depot and not carry out some work on it even if only sporadic ?

 

[3RDGEN]

They only require 19 (the 19 769s) to run a full service and release the 158s.

There's only 18 ex GWR 769/9's remaining so might cover 9 or 10 diagrams a day if you base it on Northern's experience.

 

[REVUpminster]

The King in the North has authorised 29 new battery/electric 5 car trains to overcome severe overcrowding on Transpennine. If this releases 29 of 51 185s built for climbing gradients to replace the 150s (20 not all available) and 158s (18 only 5 of which are 3 car in use in the southwest) and with 26 175s eventually will cover all the diagrams.

And no pesky infrastructure costs. It would be too tempting for the Dft.

I bet the first battery electrics on GWR end up at Reading where they can probably justify the costs.

 

[RPI]

The King in the North has authorised 29 new battery/electric 5 car trains to overcome severe overcrowding on Transpennine. If this releases 29 of 51 185s built for climbing gradients to replace the 150s (20 not all available) and 158s (18 only 5 of which are 3 car in use in the southwest) and with 26 175s eventually will cover all the diagrams.

And no pesky infrastructure costs. It would be too tempting for the Dft.

I bet the first battery electrics on GWR end up at Reading where they can probably justify the costs.

185's wouldn't be much good for the West, they're much heavier than anything we currently have and they guzzle fuel.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And it's a 2034 introduction... it was a 2022 introduction for the 197s, 2023 withdrawal for the 175s from TfW, and it's currently 2026 and GWR are barely getting one train out each day...

So we'd be looking at the trains being 30 years old before squadron service anyway, and that's before remembering they're inefficient fuel guzzlers and very heavy.

 

[REVUpminster]

And it's a 2034 introduction... it was a 2022 introduction for the 197s, 2023 withdrawal for the 175s from TfW, and it's currently 2026 and GWR are barely getting one train out each day...

So we'd be looking at the trains being 30 years old before squadron service anyway, and that's before remembering they're inefficient fuel guzzlers and very heavy.

They might be heavy but so are battery trains. They have had modifications regarding fuel use.

I wonder what the weight of a GWR battery 230 is compared to a 150 and a 150 becomes lighter as it uses fuel.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They might be heavy but so are battery trains. They have had modifications regarding fuel use.

I wonder what the weight of a GWR battery 230 is compared to a 150 and a 150 becomes lighter as it uses fuel.

Okay fine, but my point was more about the age.

 

[REVUpminster]

Okay fine, but my point was more about the age.

Like the 175, the 185 would be a stop gap. Is the Southwest first in line for new trains or is it the southeast? I don't think will see a Greater Anglia fleet replacement down here. There's plenty of trains stored at Long Marston including GWR 769s that are of no use here.

 

[Snow1964]

Like the 175, the 185 would be a stop gap.

Yes the South West seems to be getting lots of stop gaps
165s displaced from London Suburban by 345s
166s displaced from Thames Valley by 387s
175s displaced from Wales by 197s
Potentially 185s from Transpennine

Not really a long term strategy

Is the Southwest first in line for new trains or is it the southeast?

Currently sounds like South East new fleet might be approved before Christmas (from SE replacement thread)

Even though the 150s, 158s and 165s in South West are older, and the 159s and 166s are similar age. Which rather suggests South West new fleet should be approved first.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What's your alternative suggestion to quickly address GWR's rolling stock shortage?

Presumably a magical incantation along the lines of abra cadabra heed my call, summon enough DMUs for all!?

There isn't a sane solution to this mess in the short term that doesn't involve a time machine (or magic). Procurement of new DMUs should have been a thing of the past long ago; with the benefit of hindsight the class 172s should really have been the last DMUs delivered. The only sensible solution to the mess GWR (and other regions) are in (but it isn't quick) is lots more electrification combined with new and cascaded EMUs and bi-mode units.

It doesn't help that the requirements demanded of the new trains are more complex than ever. Bimodes, BEMUs, etc.

And we're back to magic or a time machine. GB really should have wired a lot more of it's network by now, then most of the trains could be relatively simple EMUs.

Internally, the 175 is a great train. Spacious, airy, good seat alignment, and good suspension and comfort, but it's traction mechanics are the stuff of an engineers nightmare, especially when said engineer realises the services GWR are asking them to operate. Mechanically, they're absolute dogs. Underpowered, not enough tractive effort to pull the skin off a rice pudding, a mismatched engine/transmission combo, needing their guts absolutely ragged out on tough climbs, diminuative cooler groups, fire prone, and unsuited to anything but operating on limited stop, long distance cruising on flat ground in cold weather.

Its a shame GWR are having such major problems with the 175s. They were very nice units internally but ATW and then TFW had no end of issues with them.

Admittedly, as a mere passenger, I've no first-hand experience of the engineering side but my feeling is that the 175s were pretty solid performers through most of their time with ATW - it was TfW that had trouble with them. Almost every train on the Manchester - Milford Haven services was a 175 Mon-Fri when I was travelling a lot more than now. Indeed, if I could relive those days, given the choice I would pick a 175 in hot weather, because the air-con was really effective back then, compared to the runs between Manchester and Shrewsbury on cold winter evenings when they could be absolutely freezing. ATW/TfW 158s are of course the opposite, cosy warm inside in winter but boiling and to be avoided in a summer heatwave.

Regarding 'fire prone' in particular; I read somewhere that there were some problems in the early days which were eventually narrowed down to a build-up of dirt on a certain bit of underframe equipment but that was resolved by adding a routine maintenance operation (or modifying the train wash machine?) to ensure that bit was kept clean (or am I thinking of the 180s?). The recurrence of several fires soon after the rebrand to TfW to me implies that new TfW/CAF staff somewhere didn't realise the importance of that modification to the maintenance plan and reversed it; with disastrous results.

when Porterbrook decided to send the Northern 769s to Brodies for exam, they refitted to ex TfW diesel only 769s with pantographs, rather than send the stored 769/9s which I believe were already 25kV compatible.

I thought the TfW 769s were 25kV compatible too - TfW just took the pantographs off to minimise the risk of damage to them I thought, given TfW were using them only on non-electrified route(s) at the time?

Whilst I agree that the DfT has a lot to answer for, surely the ROSCO has to take some of the responsibility? They are the owner and should not be leasing stock in a state that is not suitable for operations.

I think TfW (and maybe CAF, given the transfer of Chester depot to CAF from Alstom) need to take some of the blame too, as the class 175's reliability certainly appeared to nosedive sometime after TfW replaced ATW; even before TfW withdrew them.

a line so steeply graded BR built a dedicated fleet of 158s with more powerful engines to cope

And yet, none of the 158s/159s with 400hp engines have been seen in Wales for some time to my knowledge...

I feel like it's time for me to make my biannual reminder that contrary to popular belief, they were actually very reliable units at ATW. Unlike the 180s, Alsthom at Chester were able to get on top of things and do a pretty decent job. It proves it can be done.

They only had major problems in their final years, when the plans were being put in place for their replacement. 2 years in a field afterwards probably didn't help much either.

Indeed. As it happens I came across a Modern Railways supplement showing details from the November 2014 'Golden Spanners' awards the other day. Here's some extracts of the published reliability (MTIN MAA) figures:

Fleet​	P7 2014-15​	P7 2013-2014​	Category​
Class 222 (East Midlands Trains)	39,525​	25,623​	InterCity​
Class 172 (London Midland)	23,196​	21,379​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 185 (First TPE)	20,881​	22,809​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 170 (London Midland)	18,533​	12,604​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 158 (East Midlands Trains)	9,880​	9,011​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 175 (Arriva Trains Wales)	16,218​	17,957​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 153 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,738​	5,719​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 180 (Hull Trains)	15,845​	15,550​	InterCity​
Class 150 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,228​	6,450​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (First Great Western)	5,701​	5,658​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,184​	6,152​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 172 (LOROL)	10,192​	12,894​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 166 (First Great Western)	4,951​	5,750​	New Generation DMUs​

There have been occasional rumours circulating suggesting that some 175 parts are in short supply ? We did, at times, have some temporary supply issues and in the main overcome them by using a "rolling rob" procedure between units. Not ideal !

Could the lack of supply of some parts be more than temporary and 106, 107, 108 have been robbed of parts to service other units ? If so I hope that they have put in a decent tracking system to what has been robbed and to which units robbed parts ended up on.

Of course, GWR have leased 26 class 175s from what was a 27-unit fleet. Surely the ROSCO have/can rob parts from the un-leased 'unit' (actually formed with written-off coaches from two different units if I recall correctly)?

They’d be better off reactivating those Castles for 12 months until the 175s are utterly reliable. I know it can’t happen though.

I still think the Castle HSTs (and similarly the XC sliding-door mark 3s) either should never have happened at all or should not have been stood down before 2030 (to get passengers'/taxpayers' moneys' worth from what must have been a seriously expensive life-extension programme to fit those new doors to the mark 3s).

Currently sounds like South East new fleet might be approved before Christmas (from SE replacement thread)

Even though the 150s, 158s and 165s in South West are older, and the 159s and 166s are similar age. Which rather suggests South West new fleet should be approved first.

Comes down to the lack of electrification AGAIN. We urgent;ly need a combined rolling stock AND infrastructure decarbonisation strategy - not more new DMUs that will simply blight the business case for new electrification until well after we're supposed to have reached net-Zero - it's why I call the 197s and 195s abominations - like I said in the first paragraph the 172s should have been the last new DMUs.

 

[3RDGEN]

Is the Southwest first in line for new trains or is it the southeast?

Which rather suggests South West new fleet should be approved first.

Not relavent to this thread but there is no tender issued for GWR/South West exBR fleets replacement, the three live DfT operator tenders are for SouthEastern - Pending, TPE - Awarded and Northern - Pending. I suspect GWR will get new units off the back of the Northern tender which is for a call of contract based on 3 phases of new build.

 

[coppercapped]

There isn't a sane solution to this mess in the short term that doesn't involve a time machine (or magic). Procurement of new DMUs should have been a thing of the past long ago; with the benefit of hindsight the class 172s should really have been the last DMUs delivered. The only sensible solution to the mess GWR (and other regions) are in (but it isn't quick) is lots more electrification combined with new and cascaded EMUs and bi-mode units.


And we're back to magic or a time machine. GB really should have wired a lot more of it's network by now, then most of the trains could be relatively simple EMUs.



Admittedly, as a mere passenger, I've no first-hand experience of the engineering side but my feeling is that the 175s were pretty solid performers through most of their time with ATW - it was TfW that had trouble with them. Almost every train on the Manchester - Milford Haven services was a 175 Mon-Fri when I was travelling a lot more than now. Indeed, if I could relive those days, given the choice I would pick a 175 in hot weather, because the air-con was really effective back then, compared to the runs between Manchester and Shrewsbury on cold winter evenings when they could be absolutely freezing. ATW/TfW 158s are of course the opposite, cosy warm inside in winter but boiling and to be avoided in a summer heatwave.

Regarding 'fire prone' in particular; I read somewhere that there were some problems in the early days which were eventually narrowed down to a build-up of dirt on a certain bit of underframe equipment but that was resolved by adding a routine maintenance operation (or modifying the train wash machine?) to ensure that bit was kept clean (or am I thinking of the 180s?). The recurrence of several fires soon after the rebrand to TfW to me implies that new TfW/CAF staff somewhere didn't realise the importance of that modification to the maintenance plan and reversed it; with disastrous results.


I thought the TfW 769s were 25kV compatible too - TfW just took the pantographs off to minimise the risk of damage to them I thought, given TfW were using them only on non-electrified route(s) at the time?


I think TfW (and maybe CAF, given the transfer of Chester depot to CAF from Alstom) need to take some of the blame too, as the class 175's reliability certainly appeared to nosedive sometime after TfW replaced ATW; even before TfW withdrew them.


And yet, none of the 158s/159s with 400hp engines have been seen in Wales for some time to my knowledge...


Indeed. As it happens I came across a Modern Railways supplement showing details from the November 2014 'Golden Spanners' awards the other day. Here's some extracts of the published reliability (MTIN MAA) figures:

Fleet​	P7 2014-15​	P7 2013-2014​	Category​
Class 222 (East Midlands Trains)	39,525​	25,623​	InterCity​
Class 172 (London Midland)	23,196​	21,379​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 185 (First TPE)	20,881​	22,809​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 170 (London Midland)	18,533​	12,604​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 158 (East Midlands Trains)	9,880​	9,011​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 175 (Arriva Trains Wales)	16,218​	17,957​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 153 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,738​	5,719​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 180 (Hull Trains)	15,845​	15,550​	InterCity​
Class 150 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,228​	6,450​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (First Great Western)	5,701​	5,658​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,184​	6,152​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 172 (LOROL)	10,192​	12,894​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 166 (First Great Western)	4,951​	5,750​	New Generation DMUs​

Of course, GWR have leased 26 class 175s from what was a 27-unit fleet. Surely the ROSCO have/can rob parts from the un-leased 'unit' (actually formed with written-off coaches from two different units if I recall correctly)?


I still think the Castle HSTs (and similarly the XC sliding-door mark 3s) either should never have happened at all or should not have been stood down before 2030 (to get passengers'/taxpayers' moneys' worth from what must have been a seriously expensive life-extension programme to fit those new doors to the mark 3s).


Comes down to the lack of electrification AGAIN. We urgent;ly need a combined rolling stock AND infrastructure decarbonisation strategy - not more new DMUs that will simply blight the business case for new electrification until well after we're supposed to have reached net-Zero - it's why I call the 197s and 195s abominations - like I said in the first paragraph the 172s should have been the last new DMUs.

You can call these new diesel trains abominations for as long as you like - the world has changed since the 'net zero' target was declared. Because of Putin's war in Ukraine and Trumpian politics it is necessary to increase defence spending to avoid such situations as being blackmailed by a threatened nuclear attack on the North Sea wind farms or the dredging up of the sub-sea power interconnectors or the cutting of the telecommunications cables if we don't stop supporting countries which want to stay independent. At the same time the yield on gilts is increasing - and is now north of 5% - and £2 of every £3 spent from the DfT's railway budget goes on HS2.

For the next five years at least there will be no further medium or large electrification projects apart from those currently underway.

 

[3RDGEN]

Comes down to the lack of electrification AGAIN.

You are missing the point, the railway is being "electrified" but by on train batteries vice infrastructure works as the motors don't care where the electric comes from. Not saying its the correct strategy but its the one that's happening.

 

[GoneSouth]

185's wouldn't be much good for the West, they're much heavier than anything we currently have and they guzzle fuel.

A heavy train is better than no train.

I understand that higher fuel costs are not ideal but looking at how long people are waiting for trains to Penzance this evening id take a heavy thirsty TPE graduate than nothing at all.

Where does the weight become a problem? Are there bridges that can’t take them? Embankments that can’t take them? Viaducts that can’t take them? Several people say the 185s are heavy units that aren’t suitable but I’ve seen no specifics. Which sections of track can they not run on because they are too heavy?

Anyhow, they’ll be too old by the time GWR get their hands on them. I really like the 185s, they feel solid.

There isn't a sane solution to this mess in the short term that doesn't involve a time machine (or magic). Procurement of new DMUs should have been a thing of the past long ago; with the benefit of hindsight the class 172s should really have been the last DMUs delivered. The only sensible solution to the mess GWR (and other regions) are in (but it isn't quick) is lots more electrification combined with new and cascaded EMUs and bi-mode units.


And we're back to magic or a time machine. GB really should have wired a lot more of it's network by now, then most of the trains could be relatively simple EMUs.



Admittedly, as a mere passenger, I've no first-hand experience of the engineering side but my feeling is that the 175s were pretty solid performers through most of their time with ATW - it was TfW that had trouble with them. Almost every train on the Manchester - Milford Haven services was a 175 Mon-Fri when I was travelling a lot more than now. Indeed, if I could relive those days, given the choice I would pick a 175 in hot weather, because the air-con was really effective back then, compared to the runs between Manchester and Shrewsbury on cold winter evenings when they could be absolutely freezing. ATW/TfW 158s are of course the opposite, cosy warm inside in winter but boiling and to be avoided in a summer heatwave.

Regarding 'fire prone' in particular; I read somewhere that there were some problems in the early days which were eventually narrowed down to a build-up of dirt on a certain bit of underframe equipment but that was resolved by adding a routine maintenance operation (or modifying the train wash machine?) to ensure that bit was kept clean (or am I thinking of the 180s?). The recurrence of several fires soon after the rebrand to TfW to me implies that new TfW/CAF staff somewhere didn't realise the importance of that modification to the maintenance plan and reversed it; with disastrous results.


I thought the TfW 769s were 25kV compatible too - TfW just took the pantographs off to minimise the risk of damage to them I thought, given TfW were using them only on non-electrified route(s) at the time?


I think TfW (and maybe CAF, given the transfer of Chester depot to CAF from Alstom) need to take some of the blame too, as the class 175's reliability certainly appeared to nosedive sometime after TfW replaced ATW; even before TfW withdrew them.


And yet, none of the 158s/159s with 400hp engines have been seen in Wales for some time to my knowledge...


Indeed. As it happens I came across a Modern Railways supplement showing details from the November 2014 'Golden Spanners' awards the other day. Here's some extracts of the published reliability (MTIN MAA) figures:

Fleet​	P7 2014-15​	P7 2013-2014​	Category​
Class 222 (East Midlands Trains)	39,525​	25,623​	InterCity​
Class 172 (London Midland)	23,196​	21,379​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 185 (First TPE)	20,881​	22,809​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 170 (London Midland)	18,533​	12,604​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 158 (East Midlands Trains)	9,880​	9,011​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 175 (Arriva Trains Wales)	16,218​	17,957​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 153 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,738​	5,719​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 180 (Hull Trains)	15,845​	15,550​	InterCity​
Class 150 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,228​	6,450​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (First Great Western)	5,701​	5,658​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 158 (Arriva Trains Wales)	6,184​	6,152​	Ex-BR DMUs​
Class 172 (LOROL)	10,192​	12,894​	New Generation DMUs​
Class 166 (First Great Western)	4,951​	5,750​	New Generation DMUs​

Of course, GWR have leased 26 class 175s from what was a 27-unit fleet. Surely the ROSCO have/can rob parts from the un-leased 'unit' (actually formed with written-off coaches from two different units if I recall correctly)?


I still think the Castle HSTs (and similarly the XC sliding-door mark 3s) either should never have happened at all or should not have been stood down before 2030 (to get passengers'/taxpayers' moneys' worth from what must have been a seriously expensive life-extension programme to fit those new doors to the mark 3s).


Comes down to the lack of electrification AGAIN. We urgent;ly need a combined rolling stock AND infrastructure decarbonisation strategy - not more new DMUs that will simply blight the business case for new electrification until well after we're supposed to have reached net-Zero - it's why I call the 197s and 195s abominations - like I said in the first paragraph the 172s should have been the last new DMUs.

The 195s, 196s and 197s aren’t abominations though, they are moving thousands of people around every day that would otherwise be stood on desolate platforms with either no train or trains so full they couldn’t board. In that regard they were exactly the right choice.

The abomination would have been leaving large regions in the country with no trains whilst we pursue a policy of growing large city business centres like Manchester Birmingham and Leeds.

 

[RPI]

A heavy train is better than no train.

I understand that higher fuel costs are not ideal but looking at how long people are waiting for trains to Penzance this evening id take a heavy thirsty TPE graduate than nothing at all.

Where does the weight become a problem? Are there bridges that can’t take them? Embankments that can’t take them? Viaducts that can’t take them? Several people say the 185s are heavy units that aren’t suitable but I’ve seen no specifics. Which sections of track can they not run on because they are too heavy?

We're going way off on a tangent, in the real world, it would be far more likely to obtain 158's from TfW, but that's been done to death. The reality is, the 175's have to work and become more reliable as in the short term, where they're needed, there is literally nothing else.

 

[GoneSouth]

We're going way off on a tangent, in the real world, it would be far more likely to obtain 158's from TfW, but that's been done to death. The reality is, the 175's have to work and become more reliable as in the short term, where they're needed, there is literally nothing else.

Definitely with you there. I was just responding to others, admittedly getting ahead of themselves.

It’s just so frustrating that nobody gives a toss about transport if it doesn’t involve London. We have 40 year old trains just about holding together but probably won’t for another 10 years and 30 year old trains which they can’t make work (or at least haven’t in the 18 months since the first arrived). They are already reducing the timetable because of shortages, if the 175s don’t work there will be inevitable large timetable cuts which is an absolute killer for those of us that don’t drive. Such a mess, and not of GWRs making

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s just so frustrating that nobody gives a toss about transport if it doesn’t involve London.

Gosh it’s been a while since I heard that old chestnut!

 

[GoneSouth]

Gosh it’s been a while since I heard that old chestnut!

 

[Roylang]

Gosh it’s been a while since I heard that old chestnut!

To be fair, when I expressed concern way back up thread about what would happen in the far west, several people were quite happy to suggest it wouldn’t be a problem as trains are always empty that far away.

Certainly seemed to me some were not at all concerned about Cornwall…

Roy

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Certainly seemed to me some were not at all concerned about Cornwall…

OK, but note that you've just said "several people were quite happy to suggest it wouldn’t be a problem as trains are always empty that far away," not "several people were quite happy to suggest it wouldn’t be a problem as it's not going to London."

 

[Rhydgaled]

You can call these new diesel trains abominations for as long as you like - the world has changed since the 'net zero' target was declared. Because of Putin's war in Ukraine and Trumpian politics it is necessary to increase defence spending to avoid such situations as being blackmailed by a threatened nuclear attack on the North Sea wind farms or the dredging up of the sub-sea power interconnectors or the cutting of the telecommunications cables

The world has changed, yes; in more ways than one. Yes, it is necessary to increase defence spending but it is also necessary to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) dependence on oil and gas imports, which are just as vulnerable (as seen with Trump vs Iran) to hostile interference as North Sea wind farms. Climate change is also a national security issue, and has not gone away because of the international threats.

abomination would have been leaving large regions in the country with no trains whilst we pursue a policy of growing large city business centres like Manchester Birmingham and Leeds.

A heavy train is better than no train.

I agree with you on both counts, but by the time the 195s were ordered we should have ensured that all new trains for unwired routes had at least passive provision for a pantograph. TfW did it with the class 231s (but not, unfortunately, the 197s); WMT should have done similar with their CAF order (or the 196s should have come many years earlier, at a similar time to the 172s).

Where does the weight become a problem? Are there bridges that can’t take them? Embankments that can’t take them? Viaducts that can’t take them? Several people say the 185s are heavy units that aren’t suitable but I’ve seen no specifics. Which sections of track can they not run on because they are too heavy?

It's not just a question of whether or not a bit of track is able to accept a particular train type, although some bridges probably do have weight limits. There are also less-restrictive speed restrictions for some types of stock (often due to braking distance rather than weight, but not always).

The reality is, the 175's have to work and become more reliable as in the short term, where they're needed, there is literally nothing else.

Absolutely agree. Assuming GWR do manage to get them back to reliable running the 175s are much nicer from a passenger's point of view than most of the short/medium-term alternatives too.

 

[GoneSouth]

The world has changed, yes; in more ways than one. Yes, it is necessary to increase defence spending but it is also necessary to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) dependence on oil and gas imports, which are just as vulnerable (as seen with Trump vs Iran) to hostile interference as North Sea wind farms. Climate change is also a national security issue, and has not gone away because of the international threats.



I agree with you on both counts, but by the time the 195s were ordered we should have ensured that all new trains for unwired routes had at least passive provision for a pantograph. TfW did it with the class 231s (but not, unfortunately, the 197s); WMT should have done similar with their CAF order (or the 196s should have come many years earlier, at a similar time to the 172s).


It's not just a question of whether or not a bit of track is able to accept a particular train type, although some bridges probably do have weight limits. There are also less-restrictive speed restrictions for some types of stock (often due to braking distance rather than weight, but not always).


Absolutely agree. Assuming GWR do manage to get them back to reliable running the 175s are much nicer from a passenger's point of view than most of the short/medium-term alternatives too.

Also agree with you. Fingers crossed things turn around. From a personal point of view I’m heading down to Cornwall a few times before Christmas so I’d love to find one of these trains in service.

 

[Harpo]

I’m heading down to Cornwall a few times before Christmas so I’d love to find one of these trains in service.

One? Might be an ambitious target.

 

[REVUpminster]

If they do get the 175s working then they are a good replacement for the HSTs in a 3+2 formation (4 diagrams?), 158s 2 car, 3 car, 3+2, 2+2 (Barnstaple 3 diagrams and mainline I'd be guessing) 150 diagrams (Okehampton 2 diagrams) (Falmouth-Newquay 5 diagrams?).

The 175 is a versatile train and with 19 trains plus could cover a number of routes except one; Paignton-Exmouth (7 diagrams) which in the short term could be done just by 150s and fewer turbos. There has been up to six turbos operating out of Exeter recently to Paignton, Exmouth, Okehampton, and Barnstaple

185s as they are released in 3/4 years could replace all the 150s and turbos leaving just two stocks in the South West instead of 5 that operate now on local trains (150, 158, 165, 166, 175, and the odd 800) and minimum infrastructure costs for 10 years before battery/electrics or whatever is the future by then.

 

[Killingworth]

185s as they are released in 3/4 years could replace all the 150s and turbos leaving just two stocks in the South West instead of 5 that operate now on local trains (150, 158, 165, 166, 175, and the odd 800) and minimum infrastructure costs for 10 years before battery/electrics or whatever is the future by then.

185s are very reliable trains. That's significantly to the credit of the Siemens staff at the purpose built Ardwick train depot. Sending some to distant routes would be likely to reduce that record.

I'd keep them on routes running through.Manchester or close to those routes. They are heavy trains attracting high track mileage rates.

 

[Ashley Hill]

If they do get the 175s working then they are a good replacement for the HSTs in

The two car sets have occasionally been a challenge capacity wise during the summer.

 

[HOOVER29]

Tomorrow there are several stp’s to & from Exeter originating from Laira.
Timed at 90mph I presume these are class 175’s?
Mileage accumulation is 596 minus chains so two days & thats 1200 miles?
Various trips to & from Exeter & Plymouth, Paignton & Newton Abbot

Provided the thing doesn’t sit down somewhere

 

[Apedlar12]

Tomorrow there are several stp’s to & from Exeter originating from Laira.
Timed at 90mph I presume these are class 175’s?

Yes, these have been running for months now and have been 175s on crew training I believe, but I suspect now they are being used as the mileage runs instead.