Class 175 future speculation

[Lurcheroo]

A darn sight more comformable than an IET in my opinion. I personally would actively seek to travel on them instead of an IET if travelling to Cornwall or east to say Exeter.

I’m with you on that one !!

Yes more comfortable, however as someone who frequently reads or works while travelling I do appreciate the quiet coach on the iet.

Perhaps if there was enough demand GWR could implement it on the 175’s too ?

 

[Anonymous10]

I’m with you on that one !!

Perhaps if there was enough demand GWR could implement it on the 175’s too ?

I don't see that being viable given that units would be needed to work on Okehampton ect and a 3 car would only have 1 standard class non quiet coach then. But I hope so.

 

[brad465]

All the sources I have read suggest the depot is likely to be Laira and routes covered Cardiff - Penzance plus Okehampton/ Barnstaple. The 100mph capability being better used (Cardiff to Newton Abbot) than the Portsmouth route where there would also be additional speed restrictions for 175s compared with class 165/158.

I'm guessing 175s are not permitted to use SP limits then, given that's a common differential on that route.

 

[Xavi]

I'm guessing 175s are not permitted to use SP limits then, given that's a common differential on that route.

Yes, that was my assumption.

 

[The_Train]

A darn sight more comformable than an IET in my opinion. I personally would actively seek to travel on them instead of an IET if travelling to Cornwall or east to say Exeter.

Absolutely agree. 175s are actually really comfortable to travel in and I'd much prefer one of these on the Bristol turns over an IET.....providing it could complete the journey without catching fire of course

 

[Caaardiff]

Absolutely agree. 175s are actually really comfortable to travel in and I'd much prefer one of these on the Bristol turns over an IET.....providing it could complete the journey without catching fire of course

If they are properly maintained and well looked after, they are relatively reliable trains.
Fires were caused by a drop in maintenance regime.

 

[The_Train]

If they are properly maintained and well looked after, they are relatively reliable trains.
Fires were caused by a drop in maintenance regime.

Won't matter if they run them along the Dawlish coast - automatic fire extinguishers along there

 

[TrainBoy98]

Won't matter if they run them along the Dawlish coast - automatic fire extinguishers along there

 

[craigybagel]

I'm guessing 175s are not permitted to use SP limits then, given that's a common differential on that route.

Correct. They can use MU & HST but not SP. That said, it might be more a paperwork issue than an actual problem with the units - the routes they worked under TfW didn't have SP speeds.

 

[Lurcheroo]

If they are properly maintained and well looked after, they are relatively reliable trains.
Fires were caused by a drop in maintenance regime.

My understanding was that it was just a specific step of maintenance (removing debris from atop of the engine bay) that was getting missed when the depot changed from Alstom to CAF. An easy step for any future maintenance depot to carry out.

I don't see that being viable given that units would be needed to work on Okehampton ect and a 3 car would only have 1 standard class non quiet coach then. But I hope so.

I suppose it could depend on how things are diagrammed if they do get them. But if you had them running in semi-permanent fixed 5 car sets for CDF-PNZ it would be reasonable to have one coach made into a quiet coach.

 

[Anonymous10]

My understanding was that it was just a specific step of maintenance (removing debris from atop of the engine bay) that was getting missed when the depot changed from Alstom to CAF. An easy step for any future maintenance depot to carry out.


I suppose it could depend on how things are diagrammed if they do get them. But if you had them running in semi-permanent fixed 5 car sets for CDF-PNZ it would be reasonable to have one coach made into a quiet coach.

Ah yes the /0 being a first class and quiet coach and all the loud people / groups all in the /1

 

[py_megapixel]

Ah yes the /0 being a first class and quiet coach and all the loud people / groups all in the /1

In that case, if a loud group gets in the /0 by accident, they're stuck...

 

[Anonymous10]

In that case, if a loud group gets in the /0 by accident, they're stuck...

Yes, it was more me joking as I mentioned 1st class which would require new seating and layout being fitted to the 175s.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Ah yes the /0 being a first class and quiet coach and all the loud people / groups all in the /1

I love it haha !

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It will be interesting to see a 175 in GWR green, although TfW did apply new livery to the whole fleet quite recently, so they probably don't need a new paint job yet.

I could see them being left white but with the red on the doors and sections around the cab replaced with GWR dark green.

I don't see that being viable given that units would be needed to work on Okehampton ect and a 3 car would only have 1 standard class non quiet coach then. But I hope so.

I know it's like comparing Apples and Oranges, but on New South Wales Intercity services down under, the Quiet Zone and not-Quiet Zone carriage balance is evenly split. Double-deck four carriage H & V Sets, both cab cars, both levels are Quiet Zones, and single-deck two carriage Endeavours, one Quiet, one not. I love that personally, although it's needed to have multiple quiet carriages down there, because so few people pay attention to it you usually need to move to the other to get some peace.

 

[James Kevill]

Have anyone have the updates about what happened to Class 175004, 175008 and 175101 yet? I thought these units need to have some repairs by now and I've not heard about them yet since in 2023. 175008 have the fire damaged before

 

[BillStampy]

Have anyone have the updates about what happened to Class 175004, 175008 and 175101 yet? I thought these units need to have some repairs by now and I've not heard about them yet since in 2023. 175008 have the fire damaged before

101 recently went to Barton and hasn't come out since, I haven't heard much about 004 or 008, 101 should either return to Landore or head to Holyhead before heading for Ely Papworth.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

101 recently went to Barton and hasn't come out since, I haven't heard much about 004 or 008, 101 should either return to Landore or head to Holyhead before heading for Ely Papworth.

Have anyone have the updates about what happened to Class 175004, 175008 and 175101 yet? I thought these units need to have some repairs by now and I've not heard about them yet since in 2023. 175008 have the fire damaged before

004 didn't have a fire recently.
007 had the most recent fire but was repaired within a few weeks and was back in service before long.
008 and 101 were reformed to make a good and bad set. The bad set (008) is at Ilford for repair works. 101 re entered service.

 

[The Prisoner]

What happened to 175111 which was a long term resident of Longsight with parts borrowed?

 

[SuperLuke2334]

What happened to 175111 which was a long term resident of Longsight with parts borrowed?

It's still there.

 

[The Prisoner]

It's still there.

Bring fixed?

 

[SuperLuke2334]

Bring fixed?

That question I cannot answer because I don't know! All I know is it is still at Longsight.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

What are the 175s doing at Central Rivers please?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What are the 175s doing at Central Rivers please?

I didn't know any were there but it's an Alstom Depot, probably just storage/maintenance.

 

[Snow1964]

I didn't know any were there but it's an Alstom Depot, probably just storage/maintenance.

The lease contracts are not public, but almost certainly it has something along lines of upon return at end of lease the trains must meet X condition. Might be sliding scale depending on age.

There will also be a clause of non return, for accident damaged vehicles etc, which would be a settlement figure depending on age.

Almost certainly there will be a clause regarding keeping them and storing them, and who pays and how much too. Not expected to drop them off at front door of the Leaseco Head office.

Its possible TfW haven't fully discharged their liability to pay more yet because not returned as required

 

[43096]

The lease contracts are not public, but almost certainly it has something along lines of upon return at end of lease the trains must meet X condition. Might be sliding scale depending on age.

There will also be a clause of non return, for accident damaged vehicles etc, which would be a settlement figure depending on age.

Almost certainly there will be a clause regarding keeping them and storing them, and who pays and how much too. Not expected to drop them off at front door of the Leaseco Head office.

Its possible TfW haven't fully discharged their liability to pay more yet because not returned as required

That is almost certainly why only 6 sets have been off-leased so far. The rest are not yet in a satisfactory condition for Angel to accept them back. It will be costing TfW a fair amount in lease payments as we're almost 6 months on from the fleet finishing in service.

 

[Grumpy]

That is almost certainly why only 6 sets have been off-leased so far. The rest are not yet in a satisfactory condition for Angel to accept them back. It will be costing TfW a fair amount in lease payments as we're almost 6 months on from the fleet finishing in service.

Shame we will probably never know if TfW factored these costs into their forecast of the financial effects of replacing these units. If, of course, they bothered with such a thing.

 

[simonmpoulton]

At the end of the day TFW should've been maintaining them properly and someone at TFW should've been responsible for ensuring that this was done and kept on top of them.

I think it certainly didn't help when they took Alstom out of Chester Traincare depot and got CAF in - it's no coincidence that all the issues with them increased after that! CAF should be paying all the bills for getting them back in returnable condition in my opinion but certainly TFW need to take responsibility for not overseeing this maintenance - arguably they should have kept Chester Traincare run by Alstom until they were actually ready to return all the units to Angel.

Unfortunately it seems to be par for the course these days where nobody oversees or ensures anything is being done properly and then just complains about it afterwards!

 

[Lurcheroo]

At the end of the day TFW should've been maintaining them properly and someone at TFW should've been responsible for ensuring that this was done and kept on top of them.

I think it certainly didn't help when they took Alstom out of Chester Traincare depot and got CAF in - it's no coincidence that all the issues with them increased after that! CAF should be paying all the bills for getting them back in returnable condition in my opinion but certainly TFW need to take responsibility for not overseeing this maintenance - arguably they should have kept Chester Traincare run by Alstom until they were actually ready to return all the units to Angel.

Unfortunately it seems to be par for the course these days where nobody oversees or ensures anything is being done properly and then just complains about it afterwards!

When You say oversee, would you mean like someone who is in charge of the operation and ensures that things run smoothly ? They would also entrust the people doing the work to do their job ? Because that already happens.
Or do you mean, quite literally have a person to hover over each employee as they do their job to check their doing it correctly ? That’s obviously not feasible.

Ultimately, the contract for maintenance depot at Chester had to switch over to CAF because as part of having purchased the new 197’s, maintenance and support was to be provided by CAF.

Further to that, we will never know if CAF deliberately cut corners on 175’s to allow them more time for 197’s or if the step put into place under Alstom to perform engine bay checks for debris was poorly documented and didn’t get properly passed along to CAF.

I worked in engineering for about 4 years prior to the railway, and it’s really not Uncommon for things to be poorly documented and then someone leaves and some vital piece of information is lost and has to be rediscovered or figured out again.

 

[simonmpoulton]

Sure by oversee I mean someone responsible for the overall operation yes, I certainly wouldn't expect someone hovering over every person to ensure they have done a job correctly.
I would expect such an individual however to be someone experienced with the maintenance work that needs to be done and should be performing random spot checks to verify that the work has been completed correctly.

I agree we won't really know if corners were deliberately cut by CAF or as you very rightly pointed out that an maintenance step was missed. I would however question if they kept the old experienced staff on that nobody spoke up and questioned if the procedures were changed by management? I would hope now however that wherever they end up these maintenance procedures have now been well documented and they can continue with a new TOC for many years to come without issue!