EMR Class 170 updates

[LowLevel]

What is the actual source for this information? I’ve seen this banded about a lot, but never with any kind of substantiation. On the other hand I travel regularly on the Uckfield line and it’s clear there is little capacity for a reduction in the fleet. Peak time trains are extremely busy 8 cars, and to be honest they really need to go back to 10 as soon as possible.

EMR's latest staff updates for a start, as well as sources from staff working for both EMR and GTR.

 

[tramdan]

Or people travelling between London Bridge and East Croydon need to be encouraged somehow to use Thameslink trains rather than Southern ones. Ideally the peak Uckfield trains from London Bridge would be made pick up only at East Croydon (and possibly Oxted).

Allowing passengers between London Bridge and East Croydon to travel on diesel trains is an expensive luxury, not to mention unnecessary pollution, when they are more needed on EMR.

There is a big assumption here that there is somehow extra capacity on these TL services between those stations at peak times. I’m afraid that from experience, that capacity simply isn’t there.

This causes issues somewhat with the suggestion of introducing pick up only restrictions for East Croydon. As for Oxted, this would mean that a passenger coming from London Bridge would have to change twice, and use a slower service between East Croydon and Uckfield. This increases the journey time by around 150%. This would be unpopular I’m sure, to say the least.

This whole discussion is before you even think about how you might go about enforcing these pick up only restrictions at peak times at East Croydon and/or Oxted. At the former certainly, the platform staff definitely are stretched and have better things to be doing.

The final and most crucial point is that these services are well loaded throughout their journeys, most certainly with passengers travelling beyond Oxted and Hurst Green.

Finally, for what it’s worth I understand both issues. I live on the EMR network, but spend a lot of time on Southern, especially the Uckfield line. Both operators really do need these diesel trains, but I have seen a lot of fairly poorly informed statements about where these trains ‘should’ go, that frankly seem to gloss over how vital the capacity given by these unit is to the Southern operation.

 

[Chrisgr31]

What is the actual source for this information? I’ve seen this banded about a lot, but never with any kind of substantiation. On the other hand I travel regularly on the Uckfield line and it’s clear there is little capacity for a reduction in the fleet. Peak time trains are extremely busy 8 cars, and to be honest they really need to go back to 10 as soon as possible.

The peak trains I catch are invariably full and standing between Hurst Green and London Bridge. Seems like a particularly good way of ensuring passenger numbers never return to the Uckfield line. Odd really with the huge amounts of residential development going on in both Crowborough and Uckfield.

Then again I suppose in the days of BR the line was ignored and left to deteriorate, guess with the DfT in charge we should expect the same.

 

[bramling]

The peak trains I catch are invariably full and standing between Hurst Green and London Bridge. Seems like a particularly good way of ensuring passenger numbers never return to the Uckfield line. Odd really with the huge amounts of residential development going on in both Crowborough and Uckfield.

Then again I suppose in the days of BR the line was ignored and left to deteriorate, guess with the DfT in charge we should expect the same.

It does seem rather remiss to have spent a lot of money extending platforms. It might also help to rebalance some traffic onto the (electrified) Hastings line, many people drive to a railhead and could just as easily use the Hastings line if the incentives were there.

 

[Mollman]

The peak trains I catch are invariably full and standing between Hurst Green and London Bridge. Seems like a particularly good way of ensuring passenger numbers never return to the Uckfield line. Odd really with the huge amounts of residential development going on in both Crowborough and Uckfield.

Hopefully if the rumours are true regarding ORR allowing 3rd rail electrification then this can be done fairly speedily given there won't be the delay caused by bridge rebuilding as seen with OHLE.

 

[Starmill]

Surely three cars for Marshlink and mixed three and six for Uckfield adequately matches demand? Eight and ten cars are still very readily available for East Grinstead services. Admittedly it makes the ten car platforms a waste of time but there we go. It cuts capacity between London and Croydon such that these services are likely to be overcrowded. However there's still adequate capacity in total.

 

[Jozhua]

Voyagers has far superior acceleration & higher top speed than the Turbostars and has the same number of std seats than the 3 car 170 plus first class and a catering facility, It would be a improvement over the T-Stars.

I have read on Modern Railway that XC did planned to use Voyagers on the Nott-Cardiff to replace the 170's moveing them to the Stansted service if they get AWC 221/EMR sets, But that was back in 2020 so not sure if they're still keen doing that.

Voyagers would be more suitable in terms of a passenger experience.

In terms of acceleration/top speeds, it's probably a mute point, because the Nottingham - Birmingham route is so slow anyway! Birmingham - Cardiff is probably not going to break 100mph very much either...

 

[Domh245]

Hopefully if the rumours are true regarding ORR allowing 3rd rail electrification then this can be done fairly speedily given there won't be the delay caused by bridge rebuilding as seen with OHLE.

They'll only have to wait for all those national grid connections instead!

Surely three cars for Marshlink and mixed three and six for Uckfield adequately matches demand? Eight and ten cars are still very readily available for East Grinstead services. Admittedly it makes the ten car platforms a waste of time but there we go.

Remember 170/171 are 23m vehicles to 377s 20m, so 10 car platforms for 171s become 12cars for 377. I think 3 or 4 cars would likely be used on Marshlink, I think they've taken to running at least a few 4 car 171s on the route now, or at least they did not too long ago.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

170638 might have come over?

Realtime Trains | 508G 1436 Tyseley L.M.D. to Etches Park Sdgs | 09/05/2022

Real-time train running information for 508G 1436 departure from Tyseley L.M.D. to Etches Park Sdgs on 09/05/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

It did.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Surely three cars for Marshlink and mixed three and six for Uckfield adequately matches demand? Eight and ten cars are still very readily available for East Grinstead services. Admittedly it makes the ten car platforms a waste of time but there we go. It cuts capacity between London and Croydon such that these services are likely to be overcrowded. However there's still adequate capacity in total.

6 does not meet demand for Uckfield. The 6.30 ish from Uckfield is 8 car and is almost full leaving Edenbridge, and is packed from Oxted. That might be relieved by Thameslink returning on Monday but it will still need to be 8 due to the numbers boarded by Edenbridge. The 7ish is a 6 car which I believe is currently sufficient, it has the occasional spare seat. The 7.30ish is 6 no idea how full it is it’s too late for me!

in the evenings the 17.07 is an 8 car and fairly full, the 18.07 is a 6 car and standing room only down to Oxted. Not sure whether it will be impacted by a Thameslink from Monday

 

[louis97]

The maths doesn't work on that for Southern. Presumably it would be 12 3-car units and 4 2-cars if there were to be a Southern reformation programme.

There will be a small number of 2-cars, planners have been instructed that these are not to be used at weekends. Suspect it is to ensure with such a small fleet they get the attention they need to ensure they can run where required for capacity in the week.

 

[fgwrich]

Perhaps it's worth spinning the Southern debate out to it's own separate thread? Unfortunately, given the nature of where we are and the unlikelihood of any further DMU orders, nobody is winning out of the current situation. Southern really needs the third rail infill to go ahead, while EMR need the 170s.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this is a (non-speculative) Traction & Rollng stock thread for updates relating to EMR Class 170s

The forum has plenty of spare capacity for anyone to create a thread on any other topic.

Thanks

 

[fgwrich]

Completely by chance, all of the ex Scottish Turbostars were in the London area yesterday so I took one to East Croydon. Hopefully EMR will keep the (rather loosely fitted) Southern covers on until refurbishment, otherwise they’ll end up even more of an oddball hybrid : EMR / Southern / ScotRail.

 

[317 forever]

I have the feeling that EMR will in the end either have numerically more 170s than any other TOC, or have a higher percentage of its own local services operated by 170s (excluding CrossCountry) than any other TOC.

Disclaimer: I say local services as I am not including London services here.

 

[Nottingham59]

a higher percentage of its own local services operated by 170s

The original EMR plan was to have all their non-London services on 170s.

 

[fgwrich]

The original EMR plan was to have all their non-London services on 170s.

Indeed, the original EMR plan would have seen them drop down from varied 7 fleet of 360, HST, 180, 222, 153, 156, 158 down to a 3 strong fleet of 360, 810, 170 but it's now likely to retain a number of, if not all 26 158s.

 

[QSK19]

Indeed, the original EMR plan would have seen them drop down from varied 7 fleet of 360, HST, 180, 222, 153, 156, 158 down to a 3 strong fleet of 360, 810, 170 but it's now likely to retain a number of, if not all 26 158s.

And potentially the 180s for a while too if it’s deemed that not enough 810s were ordered.

 

[Roast Veg]

And potentially the 180s for a while too if it’s deemed that not enough 810s were ordered.

Is it likely they would retain those over a small portion of the 222s? Barring any lease specifics, it wouldn't be unprecedented to cling to a few of them for a while.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Indeed, the original EMR plan would have seen them drop down from varied 7 fleet of 360, HST, 180, 222, 153, 156, 158 down to a 3 strong fleet of 360, 810, 170 but it's now likely to retain a number of, if not all 26 158s.

The whole EMR operation is embarrassing.

 

[QSK19]

Is it likely they would retain those over a small portion of the 222s? Barring any lease specifics, it wouldn't be unprecedented to cling to a few of them for a while.

Yes, I think so because:
- The 222 fleet as a whole stands a half decent chance of finding another home (some RF suggestions being XC, replacement for GWR HSTs, ScotRail HSTs); whereas I highly doubt the 180s have anywhere lined up to go to post-EMR given their chequered history and the fact there are only 4 of them;
- For the above reason, the lease may be cheaper: EMR may be able to extend the 180 lease at a peppercorn rate, whereas Eversholt would not want to see the 222 fleet split up unless there was something else definitely planned for the units that EMR don’t retain.
- The fact that the corroded car of currently missing from 180110 is being repaired may be a sign that the 180s would stay as opposed to the 222s. If not, what would be the point of spending money on something which then won’t have a future use.

So, on the above basis, EMR’s “final” fleet would be: 158, 170, 180, 360 and 810. So much for simplification and standardisation eh?!

 

[43102EMR]

Yes, I think so because:
- The 222 fleet as a whole stands a half decent chance of finding another home (some RF suggestions being XC, replacement for GWR HSTs, ScotRail HSTs); whereas I highly doubt the 180s have anywhere lined up to go to post-EMR given their chequered history and the fact there are only 4 of them;
- For the above reason, the lease may be cheaper: EMR may be able to extend the 180 lease at a peppercorn rate, whereas Eversholt would not want to see the 222 fleet split up unless there was something else definitely planned for the units that EMR don’t retain.
- The fact that the corroded car of currently missing from 180110 is being repaired may be a sign that the 180s would stay as opposed to the 222s. If not, what would be the point of spending money on something which then won’t have a future use.

So, on the above basis, EMR’s “final” fleet would be: 158, 170, 180, 360 and 810. So much for simplification and standardisation eh?!

As mentioned by many people on several threads and including yourself, the 180s have such a bad history of technical difficulties - from what I’ve heard from EMR staff, they’re the first to go as soon as the Auroras come for that reason alone. 110’s 5th carriage is severely corroded and 109 broke down at Luton Airport to the point it had to be hauled by road for repairs elsewhere… why would EMR keep them over the Meridians?

Anyways, this is a topic for another thread.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

From Modern Railways June 2022 issue (in summary):

171201/202/401/402 are already on lease from Eversholt to EMR with a sub-lease back to GTR; they are expected to transfer to EMR in autumn and be converted into 3-car 170s. GTR could not advise Modern Railways how it was able to release these four sets, but there is speculation that the bulk of the 171s retained will then be converted into 3-car ones

Transfers of 170s from TfW and WM are dependant upon arrival of new trains, but it is hoped that the bulk will be transferred this year; it's acknowledged that some will not arrive until 2023. The final EMR 170 fleet will comprise 44 sets - 17x3-car and 27x2-car; EMR plans to "go to the market soon seeking a contractor to refurbish its 170s"

All 156s should go this year with a total of 15 going to Northern, and as Liverpool - Nottingham to remain with EMR, current plans are for all 158s to remain; it is hoped to refurbish these sets, and one option under consideration is for some to be reformed as 3-car ones so that 5-car trains are an option. The wording implies that the Nottingham split of the Norwich - Liverpool service is still planned, 5-car trains are being considered for that route, but it isn't specific; presumably 170s will take over this operation south of Nottingham

The article mentions other types operated by EMR, and states that "EMR is hoping to enter into a contract soon" for 360 refurbishment.
It also acknowledges that insufficient 810s have been ordered and one option being considered is to order more (there is an option clause in the existing contract); another being considered is the retention of a small number of diesels, potentially the class 180s - this seems strange in view of what's reported in post 1012

The upgrading of Eastcroft is mentioned; presumably these were planned for an all 170 fleet of 40+ sets, so as the changes only increase capacity for a further six vehicles will it be able to maintain the 44 x 170s AND the retained 26 x 158s?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

From Modern Railways June 2022 issue (in summary):

171201/202/401/402 are already on lease from Eversholt to EMR with a sub-lease back to GTR; they are expected to transfer to EMR in autumn and be converted into 3-car 170s. GTR could not advise Modern Railways how it was able to release these four sets, but there is speculation that the bulk of the 171s retained will then be converted into 3-car ones

Transfers of 170s from TfW and WM are dependant upon arrival of new trains, but it is hoped that the bulk will be transferred this year; it's acknowledged that some will not arrive until 2023. The final EMR 170 fleet will comprise 44 sets - 17x3-car and 27x2-car; EMR plans to "go to the market soon seeking a contractor to refurbish its 170s"

All 156s should go this year with a total of 15 going to Northern, and as Liverpool - Nottingham to remain with EMR, current plans are for all 158s to remain; it is hoped to refurbish these sets, and one option under consideration is for some to be reformed as 3-car ones so that 5-car trains are an option. The wording implies that the Nottingham split of the Norwich - Liverpool service is still planned, 5-car trains are being considered for that route, but it isn't specific; presumably 170s will take over this operation south of Nottingham

The article mentions other types operated by EMR, and states that "EMR is hoping to enter into a contract soon" for 360 refurbishment.
It also acknowledges that insufficient 810s have been ordered and one option being considered is to order more (there is an option clause in the existing contract); another being considered is the retention of a small number of diesels, potentially the class 180s - this seems strange in view of what's reported in post 1012

The upgrading of Eastcroft is mentioned; presumably these were planned for an all 170 fleet of 40+ sets, so as the changes only increase capacity for a further six vehicles will it be able to maintain the 44 x 170s AND the retained 26 x 158s?

Many thanks for this very detailed update.

 

[43102EMR]

From Modern Railways June 2022 issue (in summary):

171201/202/401/402 are already on lease from Eversholt to EMR with a sub-lease back to GTR; they are expected to transfer to EMR in autumn and be converted into 3-car 170s. GTR could not advise Modern Railways how it was able to release these four sets, but there is speculation that the bulk of the 171s retained will then be converted into 3-car ones

Transfers of 170s from TfW and WM are dependant upon arrival of new trains, but it is hoped that the bulk will be transferred this year; it's acknowledged that some will not arrive until 2023. The final EMR 170 fleet will comprise 44 sets - 17x3-car and 27x2-car; EMR plans to "go to the market soon seeking a contractor to refurbish its 170s"

All 156s should go this year with a total of 15 going to Northern, and as Liverpool - Nottingham to remain with EMR, current plans are for all 158s to remain; it is hoped to refurbish these sets, and one option under consideration is for some to be reformed as 3-car ones so that 5-car trains are an option. The wording implies that the Nottingham split of the Norwich - Liverpool service is still planned, 5-car trains are being considered for that route, but it isn't specific; presumably 170s will take over this operation south of Nottingham

The article mentions other types operated by EMR, and states that "EMR is hoping to enter into a contract soon" for 360 refurbishment.
It also acknowledges that insufficient 810s have been ordered and one option being considered is to order more (there is an option clause in the existing contract); another being considered is the retention of a small number of diesels, potentially the class 180s - this seems strange in view of what's reported in post 1012

The upgrading of Eastcroft is mentioned; presumably these were planned for an all 170 fleet of 40+ sets, so as the changes only increase capacity for a further six vehicles will it be able to maintain the 44 x 170s AND the retained 26 x 158s?

Surely retaining the diesels defeats the objective of the MML electrification? Fair enough if it’s a stopgap solution until then, but ideally it would make more sense to order more 810s. Especially with the 180’s reliability streak with EMR…

 

[Failed Unit]

It will be good to see some more 3 car sets as some routes are already leaving passengers behind. I know this may not be the case if the full December 2022 timetable is ever delivered. But certainly some services now are unusable because of demand but it is a case of put a 3 car on service x, and take it of service y and it then it is service y leaving passengers behind.

 

[QSK19]

Surely retaining the diesels defeats the objective of the MML electrification? Fair enough if it’s a stopgap solution until then, but ideally it would make more sense to order more 810s. Especially with the 180’s reliability streak with EMR…

I suppose that a DMU would be permissible as a peak time crowd buster - I think that, in this scenario, people would prioritise extra trains over what power they use. They’d also be useful to provide extra capacity for special events or if there are an unusually high number of 810s with faults at a given time, but they certainly shouldn’t play a role in regular IC operations. Depends on what the DfT authorises/demands, though - I’m certainly with you on several more 810s being ordered.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I created a thread about EMR’s potential retention of IC stock here, to avoid speculation and discussion of 180/222 in the 170 thread

EMR - Retention of IC DMUs

From Modern Railways June 2022 issue (in summary): … It also acknowledges that insufficient 810s have been ordered and one option being considered is to order more (there is an option clause in the existing contract); another being considered is the retention of a small number of diesels...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[43096]

Surely retaining the diesels defeats the objective of the MML electrification? Fair enough if it’s a stopgap solution until then, but ideally it would make more sense to order more 810s. Especially with the 180’s reliability streak with EMR…

Of course a summer of strikes may depress demand, leaving capacity fixes unrequired.

 

[WillPS]

current plans are for all 158s to remain; it is hoped to refurbish these sets,

It feels like this gets mooted every couple of years by a 158 operator, EMT might have been one in the past.

It always tends to get stopped in its tracks because of the lack of adaptor plates to compensate for the different corridor width - I seem to recall there being a relatively small number and they were all taken by GWR. Always struck me as being the sort of thing that should be fairly easy to reverse engineer and manufacture more of but it's never happened so I guess maybe not.