GwR HSTs to be stood down

[Annetts key]

I remember when the HST'S were refurbished around 2007 with the seats that are currently in them now, everyone hated them then. Truth is, most enthusiasts just don't like change, whatever that may be!

I actually did not like the original seats on the HSTs.

As to not liking change, that’s just hyperbole. It’s change for the worst that people don’t like. If it’s something good, then people generally speaking don’t complain or moan about it.

Obviously some of this will be each individuals personal opinion.

As an example, when BR on Western replaced the unreliable mix of old DMUs with the new fleet of 150 Sprinters, that was great. Were there negatives? Yes, no longer could you sit at the front, look through the glass into and through the cab and see where you were going. But overall, generally they were better.

The current HST 2+4 are and always were going to be another stop-gap. So they were obviously going eventually.

However, that does not mean that the trains that are replacing them are better in all aspects. And despite IETs being forty years younger, and hence you would expect standards and design (including interior which of course includes seats) to be at least just as good, if not, better, IETs are a bit of a let down. That’s my point.

 

[Sporty60]

I wish there was a like function in this forum.

A good many enthusiasts would love to still have trains with doors that slam, seats with springs in and the light of a fairly dim tungsten bulb. Great memories, but better as a tourist attraction than a means of public transport.

The great travelling public are more keen on a train that gets from A to B on time, with any seat, and these days somewhere to charge your device and decent air con for the hot weather.

Good points but I'll disagree on the slam doors.
Not keen on leaning out to unlatch the door and being on a fairground ride when the door opens all to efficiently with me straddling the window.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Chiltern's Mark 3 sets still have IC70s, thankfully.

Which proves the point on how subjective seats are, you like the IC70s, I avoid them like the plague. The HST set which used to work the Hull Executive towards the end of ECML HST days had a similar split of likes/dislikes for seats.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

No need to be rude just because it’s not YOUR opinion. I do agree about dogs

I’m not bringing my opinion into it, that’s the whole point. You’ve taken a sweeping assertion that the public view HSTs as comfortable and IETs as uncomfortable, which is ridiculous (unless of course, you’ve conducted research, maybe a survey?), and I said as such - which is not rude. This is a forum, and if you say something silly, people will tell you that it’s silly. You also don’t necessarily know what my opinion is.

I remember when the HST'S were refurbished around 2007 with the seats that are currently in them now, everyone hated them then. Truth is, most enthusiasts just don't like change, whatever that may be!

I think this is really, really well said. Unfortunately, the National Rail network is not a preserved railway built to relish in the favourite nostalgia of the past, and hence it must evolve appropriately. When I have criticised the retention of HSTs in the past, namely before the three current TOCs announced their eventual replacement, it has been taken by enthusiasts on here as antagonistic, whereas I primarily don’t want a railway run with stock older than my mother when we could be using new, state of the art trains as seen in many places on the continent.

Good points but I'll disagree on the slam doors.
Not keen on leaning out to unlatch the door and being on a fairground ride when the door opens all to efficiently with me straddling the window.

And of course, someone died on a Gatwick Express several years ago from sticking their head out of a 442’s droplight and thus receiving an unfortunate beheading, if you’ll excuse the blunt wording. Very nasty and unfortunate.
That being said, whether or not we really be expected to put protocols in place to protect people doing silly things is another question altogether, for example just as someone could stick their head out of a moving train’s droplight, someone could jump onto the tracks and play on them, yet there’s no rush to ban stations that lack platform-edge doors.

 

[yorksrob]

Which is subjective so not something the aforementioned guard would necessarily automatically agree with, of course.

Indeed, which is all the more reason to mention it in the hope that filters up into the industry.

I think this is really, really well said. Unfortunately, the National Rail network is not a preserved railway built to relish in the favourite nostalgia of the past, and hence it must evolve appropriately. When I have criticised the retention of HSTs in the past, namely before the three current TOCs announced their eventual replacement, it has been taken by enthusiasts on here as antagonistic, whereas I primarily don’t want a railway run with stock older than my mother when we could be using new, state of the art trains as seen in many places on the continent.

Which is fine, so long as this modern, state of the art rolling stock turns up on time, as opposed to everyone being crammed onto what's left over.

 

[irish_rail]

This..... The only complaints I get is 1. Plugs not working 2. No trolly on Cardiff-Penzance 3. Delays 4. Price of tickets 4. Temperature of carriage.

Possibly because they will not complain to you over something you cannot change, whereas carriage temperature etc you can and they may think there is something you can do re the plug sockets. (I'm assuming you are on board staff?) .
I find it really odd that anybody can actually defend an IET seat that has more or less zero padding and forces an unnatural seating position for anyone who is not 5"8. Its defending the indefensible. For some on here to say its a case of enthusiasts not liking change?? Utter nonsense. I actually have to sit in the seats if travelling from the south west to Reading or London "pass" and they are utterly awful. A bit like that awful seating installed at Paddington Station. There is no comfort whatsoever to sitting on the "bar" I really don't get how anyone can defend this and say that is preferable to a HST seat. I think sometimes, some on here just defend the industry whether deserved or not.

 

[fgwrich]

I actually did not like the original seats on the HSTs.

As to not liking change, that’s just hyperbole. It’s change for the worst that people don’t like. If it’s something good, then people generally speaking don’t complain or moan about it.

Obviously some of this will be each individuals personal opinion.

As an example, when BR on Western replaced the unreliable mix of old DMUs with the new fleet of 150 Sprinters, that was great. Were there negatives? Yes, no longer could you sit at the front, look through the glass into and through the cab and see where you were going. But overall, generally they were better.

The current HST 2+4 are and always were going to be another stop-gap. So they were obviously going eventually.

However, that does not mean that the trains that are replacing them are better in all aspects. And despite IETs being forty years younger, and hence you would expect standards and design (including interior which of course includes seats) to be at least just as good, if not, better, IETs are a bit of a let down. That’s my point.

Exactly this (including your dislike of the IC70s). Living in the South West for most of my life, and therefore being used to both HST and 442, nobody really complained as much when the 444s replaced the 442s - why? Because they were an intercity type train designed to replace an intercity type train. Apart from the lack of luggage racks (which is something I’d hoped SWR would have addressed) they are fine units which stand high above their contemporaries for miles. The IETs should have been better than what we’ve got, but this is what we get when we have trains designed to be the jack of all trades and master of some and built to a price - or in the GW 802s case, an already poor base specification.

 

[michael74]

Possibly because they will not complain to you over something you cannot change, whereas carriage temperature etc you can and they may think there is something you can do re the plug sockets. (I'm assuming you are on board staff?) .

Yes, I am a Guard. Pax complain plenty about stuff that I can't change all the time (I listed the trolley and ticket prices didn't I) as well as other stuff, it's just that I have never had anyone mention the seats on any stock except for when their is a lack of one, because that's what they really want.

I find it really odd that anybody can actually defend an IET seat that has more or less zero padding and forces an unnatural seating position for anyone who is not 5"8. Its defending the indefensible. For some on here to say its a case of enthusiasts not liking change?? Utter nonsense. I actually have to sit in the seats if travelling from the south west to Reading or London "pass" and they are utterly awful. A bit like that awful seating installed at Paddington Station. There is no comfort whatsoever to sitting on the "bar" I really don't get how anyone can defend this and say that is preferable to a HST seat. I think sometimes, some on here just defend the industry whether deserved or not.

(I assume this is not directed at me but a reply to previous posts). For the avoidance of doubt, I have never defended nor gone on ad nauseam (like this forum does about any seat) and certainly not the IET seats, I am quite ambivalent about them. I am more bothered about my knees touching the seat in front which is an issue in a lot of stock (I am 6" 1' with long legs).

 

[irish_rail]

Yes, I am a Guard. Pax complain plenty about stuff that I can't change all the time (I listed the trolley and ticket prices didn't I) as well as other stuff, it's just that I have never had anyone mention the seats on any stock except for when their is a lack of one, because that's what they really want.

(I assume this is not directed at me but a reply to previous posts). For the avoidance of doubt, I have never defended nor gone on ad nauseam (like this forum does about any seat) and certainly not the IET seats, I am quite ambivalent about them. I am more bothered about my knees touching the seat in front which is an issue in a lot of stock (I am 6" 1' with long legs).

I agree about legroom, and IET is a massive step up legroom wise. But the seating is simply abysmal. I hate to say it , as I try my best to "sell" the routes I work. But the seating on the 80x is truly awful. The big issue is now the seat bases, which are not fit for use anymore. This will get worse as more seats collapse with time, unless Hitachi are able to replace or refurbish the base. For me its about applying pressure on Hitachi to get the seat up to the spec it was at 5 years ago. If we all sit back and say the seats are fine then the problem will only get worse. Hitachi should be held to account, and ultimately so should the seat manufacturer.

 

[michael74]

I agree about legroom, and IET is a massive step up legroom wise. But the seating is simply abysmal. I hate to say it , as I try my best to "sell" the routes I work. But the seating on the 80x is truly awful. The big issue is now the seat bases, which are not fit for use anymore. This will get worse as more seats collapse with time, unless Hitachi are able to replace or refurbish the base. For me its about applying pressure on Hitachi to get the seat up to the spec it was at 5 years ago. If we all sit back and say the seats are fine then the problem will only get worse. Hitachi should be held to account, and ultimately so should the seat manufacturer.

I can't disagree. Simon Green (on the last all colleague call) eluded to the fact that some 800 units are now 6+ years old and will be due a refresh, hopefully the seat bases will be included.

 

[Snow1964]

I can't disagree. Simon Green (on the last all colleague call) eluded to the fact that some 800 units are now 6+ years old and will be due a refresh, hopefully the seat bases will be included.

If the seat bases are faulty or broken should be replaced next time train goes in for servicing, not wait until there is a refresh or refurbishment.

Seats are a part that can be unbolted and changed like brake discs. Not quite as safety critical, but maintenance isn't supposed to be done on a leave it broken unless it is safety critical basis.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I really don't get how anyone can defend this and say that is preferable to a HST seat. I think sometimes, some on here just defend the industry whether deserved or not.

But it is me who’s providing a substantial portion of the pro-IET comments and I’m often accused by those in the industry here of being unfairly critical of the industry, so that theory surely cannot be correct.
I personally rather like the upright position and I’m 6’0. Not that tall admittedly but far taller than what you specified.

Not wanting to get too carried away on an IET HST debate though, is there any hint yet as to whether the remaining sets will continue to do the multitude of work they do currently (Cardiff-Taunton, Cardiff-Penzance, Gloucester-Bristol, Plymouth-Penzance, etc.) or be captive on Devon & Cornwall services for simplicity? As someone upthread stated, there’s very few captive diagrams within the Exeter-Penzance stretch left.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But it is me who’s providing a substantial portion of the pro-IET comments and I’m often accused by those in the industry here of being unfairly critical of the industry, so that theory surely cannot be correct.
I personally rather like the upright position and I’m 6’0. Not that tall admittedly but far taller than what you specified.

Not wanting to get too carried away on an IET HST debate though, is there any hint yet as to whether the remaining sets will continue to do the multitude of work they do currently (Cardiff-Taunton, Cardiff-Penzance, Gloucester-Bristol, Plymouth-Penzance, etc.) or be captive on Devon & Cornwall services for simplicity? As someone upthread stated, there’s very few captive diagrams within the Exeter-Penzance stretch left.

The Gloucester services in theory become IETs from the May 23 change with HSTs concentrated in the Cardiff - Taunton - Penzance corridor.

There are no captive diagrams within Devon and Cornwall these days except for the diagram which starts with the 06.25 from Exeter which is the captive 158 diagram!

 

[Bikeman78]

They needed space to fit the CET equipment which meant loosing one toilet for everyone one which has been CET fitted.

The toilets were at opposite ends of the coach. Where is the tank in relation to the remaining toilet?

Through the cab door? probably about 3 or 4 times since they were introduced I've heard that, and I'm interacting with passengers a lot more than yourself (that's not meant in a rude way)

As harder seats become the norm, people are bound to comment less. What I have noticed is that people getting on older trains with more padded seats and comment how comfy they are, or ask is this first class? If people are (or were) getting on class 317s with their battered seats and commenting how comfy they were, the new ones must be really bad!

Yea because the incessant racket from the MK3 corridor connection and squeeky suspension isn't at all irritating...

I didn't even notice that for 20 years until it was mentioned on this forum. Then again, I've travelled thousands of miles on the IETs without noticing the various problems mentioned here.

 

[43096]

The toilets were at opposite ends of the coach. Where is the tank in relation to the remaining toilet?

See this post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-hsts-to-be-stood-down.239794/post-6194176

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a reminder that we should keep this thread to discussion of the rundown of the GWR HST fleet.

Talk about seats on Class 800s for example is off topic.

thanks

 

[Railperf]

I managed to take a trip recently. The set and power cars seemed to be in pretty good shape. On a busy service with many short stops - Bedminster, Parson Street etc, this is not an ideal train. Getting on and off loses time due to door entrances and gangways seeming narrower than modern stock. The TGS takes an age to empty as there is only one set of doors at the end end of the carriage.
And despite the power doors, it does seem to take an age from doors closing to train moving off - 30 seconds or more.
On the plus side, the performance of these is effortless (with the right driver) no traction motors or diesel thrumming under the seat. I had the privilege of being aboard a late running service (18 minutes late) being taken over by a very experienced driver to end up at its destination just 3 minutes behind schedule. You won't make up that sort of time using any other diesel traction - definitely not an IET. Arguably the schedule for this service is a bit slack - which is why most of the time these seem to be driven quite casually. Getting aboard an IET in diesel mode immediately afterwards reminded me why passengers like IET's better. The lower seat backs, brighter interior and more tables - seems to be a winner. The initial sprint out of stations in diesel mode is still superior to a 2+4 HST driven hard, but that acceleration tails off quickly , and the drone of the engines - particularly on gradients starts to become noticeable.
What no-one involved at the sharp end of the operation seems to understand - when they eventually all go - is what will replace them to run the services - apart from thinning out other services with short forms? I'm hearing the GWR owned vehicles could be staying much longer - beyond December (Apologies if this has appeared up thread. I haven't had time to read every single post)..

 

[HamworthyGoods]

What no-one involved at the sharp end of the operation seems to understand - when they eventually all go - is what will replace them to run the services - apart from thinning out other services with short forms? I'm hearing the GWR owned vehicles could be staying much longer - beyond December (Apologies if this has appeared up thread. I haven't had time to read every single post)..

What is currently to replace them is 5-car 80x cascaded through non-introduction of the Off-Peak Bristol Super Fasts and the post Covid Withdrawal of Peak South Wales/Bristol Super along with removal of Paddington to Bedwyn services. This frees up enough 80x. There’s no West Regional DMUs involved in the HST replacement nor any thinning of services in the West - this has been discussed at length on this thread.

The current planned pause in the total withdrawal of HSTs is to provide some slack in the DMU fleet whilst the turbo refresh continues, one of the 80x planned for HST withdrawal is from the May timetable change covering Bristol to Worcester services.

 

[yorksrob]

So essentially, Wiltshire/Berks passengers are having their services run down to provide the stock for this money saving exercise.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

So essentially, Wiltshire/Berks passengers are having their services run down to provide the stock for this money saving exercise.

Nope, they aren’t having them run down as a money saving exercise as they are not in the timetable to run down.

These services have not existed in the timetable since December 2020 as part of the Covid service reductions to match the reduction in demand for commuting in London which has been ever present since Working from Home.

You seem to be making this out as something new to the railway when it isn’t, BR was very quick to shuffle round stock after reduction in peak demand allowing cascades to remove the oldest stock from traffic. Generally in that case it due to loss of traffic following a recession as working from home wasn’t a thing then.

Examples being removal of the HAPs and 6REPs following early 1990 recessions.

It was not economical then to have stock sitting round or travelling round carrying fresh air following a reduction in peak demand and that remains the case now.

 

[yorksrob]

Nope, they aren’t having them run down as a money saving exercise as they are not in the timetable to run down.

These services have not existed in the timetable since December 2020 as part of the Covid service reductions to match the reduction in demand for commuting in London which has been ever present since Working from Home.

If these trains are spare, what are they being used for now ?

Surely they aren't sitting around in a yard doing nothing ?

 

[Benjwri]

Nope, they aren’t having them run down as a money saving exercise as they are not in the timetable to run down.

These services have not existed in the timetable since December 2020 as part of the Covid service reductions to match the reduction in demand for commuting in London which has been ever present since Working from Home.

Probably also worth mentioning that the previously mentioned Bristol fast services have also had their paths given up to enable the full running of Crossrail (The GWR 387 stoppers are using the paths to run fast from Slough so there is room for the increased frequency of Elizabeth Line services). Even if the trains weren't being used to replace HSTs, they wouldn't be able to be used for these services.

If these trains are spare, what are they being used for now ?

Surely they aren't sitting around in a yard doing nothing ?

They are for the most part, the diagrams for the IETs are quite loose at the moment, and although this is complicated with low availability, this will tighten the diagrams up so a more reasonable amount of diagrams are unused every day.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If these trains are spare, what are they being used for now ?

Surely they aren't sitting around in a yard doing nothing ?

Yes they are - there are a number of 80x sat not used each day at both Stoke Gifford and North Pole as well as the slack diagramming mentioned in a previous post that will be tightened up.

It has been explained on this thread before the beat rate for the withdrawal of HSTs is not the availability of replacement stock but the ability to train the crews on the replacement 80x.

 

[fgwrich]

Yes they are - there are a number of 80x sat not used each day at both Stoke Gifford and North Pole as well as the slack diagramming mentioned in a previous post that will be tightened up.

It has been explained on this thread before the beat rate for the withdrawal of HSTs is not the availability of replacement stock but the ability to train the crews on the replacement 80x.

Of course this also relies on the ability of Hitachi and Agility Rail to actually provide sufficient daily numbers of IETs to not just cover their core services but additional HST replacements, something they’ve been slipping and struggling with of late. Not helped by the painfully slow crack repairs, though GW does finally have its first back now.

 

[43096]

If these trains are spare, what are they being used for now ?

Surely they aren't sitting around in a yard doing nothing ?

Yes they are - there are a number of 80x sat not used each day at both Stoke Gifford and North Pole as well as the slack diagramming mentioned in a previous post that will be tightened up.

It has been explained on this thread before the beat rate for the withdrawal of HSTs is not the availability of replacement stock but the ability to train the crews on the replacement 80x.

That is the theory. The reality is that the unused 80x are covering Hitachi's inability to get the required/contracted availability out of the fleet. I'm not sure what anyone thinks will magically change in the next few months to make these sets available for traffic on a consistent, daily basis.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That is the theory. The reality is that the unused 80x are covering Hitachi's inability to get the required/contracted availability out of the fleet. I'm not sure what anyone thinks will magically change in the next few months to make these sets available for traffic on a consistent, daily basis.

This might however force the issue into the open and hopefully some sort of resolution.

 

[fgwrich]

This might however force the issue into the open and hopefully some sort of resolution.

Reliability wise maybe, crack wise unlikely. At this rate, scrapping the affected units and starting again might have been better, but that’s for a different topic. It will however, at the rate of pace currently going, mean GW will still be down on a small number of IETs for a while yet.

 

[43096]

This might however force the issue into the open and hopefully some sort of resolution.

That's the glass half full view, I guess! On the flip side, (s)Hitachi have shown stuff all interest in delivering for their customers so far, so why change?

 

[irish_rail]

That is the theory. The reality is that the unused 80x are covering Hitachi's inability to get the required/contracted availability out of the fleet. I'm not sure what anyone thinks will magically change in the next few months to make these sets available for traffic on a consistent, daily basis.

Indeed. I note there are more 10 (instead of 9) car workings to the south west from the TT change, so can only assume that is in readiness to short form more London trains when they are a set short on the "locals". The whole plan would be great if the south west to London trains where exclusively 9 car and therefore couldn't be shortformed, but seeing as that isn't the case then its long distance passengers who face potential disruption. And all because the Daft can see the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[43096]

Indeed. I note there are more 10 (instead of 9) car workings to the south west from the TT change, so can only assume that is in readiness to short form more London trains when they are a set short on the "locals". The whole plan would be great if the south west to London trains where exclusively 9 car and therefore couldn't be shortformed, but seeing as that isn't the case then its long distance passengers who face potential disruption.

I suspect it will be a combination of that and short-forming the Cardiff-Portsmouth service. Why do you think they're re-forming more 2-car 158s?!

And all because the Daft can see the price of everything and the value of nothing.

To be fair, (s)Hitachi's inability to deliver what they are contracted to is also a significant factor. There is an argument that says why should DfT (and consequently taxpayers) pay more for additional trains purely to bail out non-performance by a contractor.