GWR timetable cut back

[TJDevon]

From an email sent by GWR

To address the consistent performance issues and the frequent short-notice cancellations brought about by the issues outlined above, we are planning a limited number of timetable reductions to come into effect from Monday 7 September. These changes – 6 cancellations on a weekday, and a smaller number on a Saturday, between Penzance and Plymouth/Exeter – will help to provide certainty for customers instead of the ad-hoc cancellations we’ve had to make over recent weeks, and help protect capacity for the rest of our services in Devon and Cornwall.

Anyone know which services?

 

[Goldfish62]

From an email sent by GWR

To address the consistent performance issues and the frequent short-notice cancellations brought about by the issues outlined above, we are planning a limited number of timetable reductions to come into effect from Monday 7 September. These changes – 6 cancellations on a weekday, and a smaller number on a Saturday, between Penzance and Plymouth/Exeter – will help to provide certainty for customers instead of the ad-hoc cancellations we’ve had to make over recent weeks, and help protect capacity for the rest of our services in Devon and Cornwall.

Anyone know which services?

Nothing on journey planners yet that I can see. Seems to be all the fashion for operators to tell us they're "temporarily removing services from the timetable" but not actually provide us with the most useful information, ie which services.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Nothing on journey planners yet that I can see. Seems to be all the fashion for operators to tell us they're "temporarily removing services from the timetable" but not actually provide us with the most useful information, ie which services.

Presumably this is related to ongoing Class 175 performance issues?

 

[Goldfish62]

Presumably this is related to ongoing Class 175 performance issues?

Yes, it is. Here's the full text from the email sent to stakeholders by GWR outlining the issues and what's being done to sort it all out:

Update today on Class 175 trains from GWR>

As we approach the end of summer, we wanted to write to you regarding our Class 175 fleet of trains. As you may be aware, we introduced these to our fleet in Devon and Cornwall at the end of 2025 as we removed the last of our Castle Class HST sets from service. Those trains were the most expensive to maintain, and the biggest contributor of pollutants in our fleet so as we rightly look to reduce the level of taxpayer subsidy required taking those trains out of service was necessary.

The introduction of the 26 Class 175s is designed to improve capacity and resilience in Devon and Cornwall and provide a better experience for our customers. However, the 15 trains transferred to GWR to date have required a higher level of recommissioning work than expected following a prolonged period in storage and out of service. The introduction of these trains has been further affected in passenger service by technical issues, which now require immediate and targeted attention to ensure the fleet delivers the reliability and benefits our customers, the communities we serve, and our colleagues expect. As a result, we know performance and punctuality on our routes in Devon and Cornwall hasn’t been good enough recently. There have been too many cancellations and delays, and customers and colleagues are rightly frustrated.

To address the consistent performance issues and the frequent short-notice cancellations brought about by the issues outlined above, we are planning a limited number of timetable reductions to come into effect from Monday 7 September. These changes – 6 cancellations on a weekday, and a smaller number on a Saturday, between Penzance and Plymouth/Exeter – will help to provide certainty for customers instead of the ad-hoc cancellations we’ve had to make over recent weeks, and help protect capacity for the rest of our services in Devon and Cornwall.

To ensure we can deliver the long-term reliability and capacity benefits that we believe the Class 175s will bring, and so we can return to a full timetable as soon as possible, we’re introducing an improvement plan based around including the key interventions which we believe will deliver a more robust and reliable fleet:
* **Enhanced pre-service assurances – **once reported defects have been fixed, each unit will undergo additional checks to identify any related or emerging issues before the train returns to passenger service. The aim is to go beyond fixing the immediate fault and give greater confidence that the unit is ready for sustained operation.


* We’ve introduced a **Class 175 1,000-mile fault-free running period **for each train before it goes into passenger service. Trains must complete the distance in simulated passenger operation without any significant faults occurring. This provides a more realistic test of reliability and greater confidence before trains are released into service.


* A **dedicated technical investigation team **has been put in place, including specialists from GWR and Angel Trains, who own the trains, and original manufacturers, Alstom. That team will carry out a full forensic review of all reported defects, using new and existing data to better understand why faults are happening and how maintenance and repair regimes can be strengthened.

It will take some time for these measures to take full effect, and we recognise the inconvenience caused as we work through this difficult period. We will of course continue to keep you updated as the improvement plan progresses, and if you do have any questions please do get in touch.

 

[Snow1964]

I am intrigued by the reference to specialists from Angel trains, the trains owners.

Why now, and not months ago. If Angel trains has specialists, why on earth did they not check and fix them at Ely once the contract had been signed, why were they handed over in such poor condition.

Rather opens more questions about why they went to GWR in a virtually unusable state, rather than Angel making them operational, to a satisfactory usable condition.

Either that, or it smacks of complete desperation on whoever agreed the contract, agreeing to take a heap of rust (without understanding poor condition) that they hoped to get operational within 2-3 years

 

[speedy1]

Here's the full text from the email sent to stakeholders by GWR outlining the issues and what's being done to sort it all out:

Masterful ass covering and PR haha

 

[apbj]

Problem: lots of failures and cancellations, causing poor performance stats
Solution: remove services from the timetable - bingo! fewer cancellations

Also: don't tell anyone you're cutting the service (definitely don't mention it anywhere on your website) and customers will never notice

 

[Goldfish62]

Problem: lots of failures and cancellations, causing poor performance stats
Solution: remove services from the timetable - bingo! fewer cancellations

Also: don't tell anyone you're cutting the service (definitely don't mention it anywhere on your website) and customers will never notice

And of course removing trains from the timetable rather than showing them as cancelled means Delay Repay can't be claimed.

 

[bramling]

I am intrigued by the reference to specialists from Angel trains, the trains owners.

Why now, and not months ago. If Angel trains has specialists, why on earth did they not check and fix them at Ely once the contract had been signed, why were they handed over in such poor condition.

Rather opens more questions about why they went to GWR in a virtually unusable state, rather than Angel making them operational, to a satisfactory usable condition.

Either that, or it smacks of complete desperation on whoever agreed the contract, agreeing to take a heap of rust (without understanding poor condition) that they hoped to get operational within 2-3 years

Was there any reason why the trains required to go into store in the first place, as opposed to going straight from TFW to GWR?

 

[LowLevel]

Is it unfair to suggest P45s and bars from working in the industry for life would be appropriate punishments for the clowns who make business decisions firstly to run down maintenance for stock that is clearly going to see further use, and those who think that the stock which has then been sat around going damp can just be pressed back into service and there won't be a problem experienced in doing so?

If there's a problem with the silo TOC and ROSCO system, this is it.

175s, 379s, 170s (just how many outstanding running defects did West Midlands Trains and ScotRail manage to pack into the 170/5s and 170/4s before they landed in the East Midlands?), 180s - happens all the time and it's hugely frustrating to everyone else who can see what is happening apart from seemingly bid managers and fleet people.

Many years ago I spoke to a bid team manager about their rolling stock plans for a dubious fleet of trains to suddenly be intrinsic to their future plans.

"How are you going to resolve the problems everyone else has had with them?"

"We are confident our maintenance teams will produce a reliable train and we are not aware of any major problems with the fleet that can't be resolved before entering traffic."

Spoiler - the trains were crap and by the time they actually turned up the no nothing in a suit was several jobs down the road working elsewhere producing no doubt unworkable in practice plans.

 

[Goldfish62]

Was there any reason why the trains required to go into store in the first place, as opposed to going straight from TFW to GWR?

Lack of a national rolling stock strategy and dithering and stalling by the DfT and Treasury.

 

[Clarence Yard]

And the 175’s could have gone to other TOCs but “the music stopped and GWR didn’t have a chair!” Nobody else wanted anything to do with them.

The DfT choosing to withdraw the GWR HST’s forced the issue as to where they were going to end up. But the DfT weren’t going to keep them going at their own expense in the interim. Presumably they are not doing now and Angel are having to spend a fortune getting them anywhere near reliable again.

 

[dk1]

And of course removing trains from the timetable rather than showing them as cancelled means Delay Repay can't be claimed.

That makes sense.

 

[richardderby]

GWR seem to have cut back on the first class complementary offer also, free wine and sandwiches have disappeared from the latest menu 'quote' GWR https://www.gwr.com/travelling-with-us/first-class/food-and-drink

 

[Goldfish62]

GWR seem to have cut back on the first class complementary offer also, free wine and sandwiches have disappeared from the latest menu 'quote' GWR https://www.gwr.com/travelling-with-us/first-class/food-and-drink

The sandwiches were always so hit and miss as not to be relied upon anyway. Hopwood clearly doesn't believe in catering on trains. His one visible contribution in his brief tenure at SWR was to abolish the last of the catering.

 

[3RDGEN]

Was there any reason why the trains required to go into store in the first place, as opposed to going straight from TFW to GWR?

When the 175's went off lease it was expected the TfW 150 and 158's would follow shortly after which would be a far better fit for GWR/Northern, with the 175's left to rot. The initial TfW 150's then got scrapped and the 158's are still with TfW so as above the 175 was the only train available and GWR/DfT got lumbered with them.

The best option for the 175's would have been if TfW had built a new depot for the 197's so the 175's could have remained at Chester under Alstom maintenance for Northern, that could have released 158's for GWR perhaps. Moving them to GWR under their maintenance was always a bad idea but the only idea in town, they will settle down in time but their never going to be fault free.