Class 175 future speculation

[Joshua483]

One issue with 175s is the same as on the Mark 3s, namely having doors at the vehicle ends rather than at thirds like the 165s and 168s.

Another is that they're fitted with Dellner couplers, where the 165s and 168s have BSI couplers, which causes diagramming issues and problems in the event of failure. (Though that's the same for the Mk 3s, given they can only realistically be rescued by a 59, 66, 67 or 68.)

If the 175's are transferred to Chiltern, they could have there Dellner couplers replaced with BSI couplers like what happened with Southern and there 171's but in the revers of what Southern did, which was replacing the BSI couplers for Dellner Couplers.

 

[krus_aragon]

If the 175's are transferred to Chiltern, they could have there Dellner couplers replaced with BSI couplers like what happened with Southern and there 171's but in the revers of what Southern did, which was replacing the BSI couplers for Dellner Couplers.

You'd also need to spend a lot of time and money making the on-board electronic systems compatible. The main reason it was practical with the 171s and 168 was that they were both turbostar units behind the couplers.

 

[317 forever]

170s work quite happily on stop start work everywhere else they are (and were) deployed, it only seems to be an issue for certain posters on here rather than the TOCs themselves.

As for 175s to Northern, although the director does not have the overall final say he is still in charge of the ships direction and that direction for DMUs is one single fleet of 195s, hence the order of hybrid drive 195s, more will be on the horizon as time goes by.

Given that the 175s started out with Regional Railways North West, some could return to routes like Manchester Airport - Liverpool (via Warrington) / Windermere. Then the 195s could enable older trains like class 150 or 153 types to be withdrawn sooner.

 

[craigybagel]

Given that the 175s started out with Regional Railways North West, some could return to routes like Manchester Airport - Liverpool (via Warrington) / Windermere. Then the 195s could enable older trains like class 150 or 153 types to be withdrawn sooner.

Again - other than route clearances, why should where a train worked 15 years ago have any impact on where a train should work now?

 

[Bevan Price]

Having read most of the previous posts, my fear is that the next home for Class 175 will be somewhere like Long Marston, wasting away until they are sold for scrap, or sold overseas. Yes, that would be a waste of money, but with the current system, and involvement of DfT, does anyone here expect sensible, logical ideas??

Personally, my latest thoughts are that there would be some logic in using them to replace the Scottish HSTs, which are over 20 years older than the 175s, but..... where is commonsense ???

 

[Signal_Box]

Aren’t East & West Railway looking for diesel units to start the new operation in the next few years?

100mph, 2 or 3 car units, comfortable look quite smart even at 22 years old.
Bletchley depot could easily be adapted to maintain them.

Only issue I can see is there’s to many of them for the limited operation.

 

[XAM2175]

Personally, my latest thoughts are that there would be some logic in using them to replace the Scottish HSTs, which are over 20 years older than the 175s, but..... where is commonsense ???

The "common sense" is right there, but you can't see it because you're so fixated on finding a home for the 175s. Meanwhile, the Scotrail HSTs - which were selected in no small part due to the fact that they don't have under-floor engines - will remain in use until they're replaced by non-diesel stock.

 

[skyhigh]

Personally, my latest thoughts are that there would be some logic in using them to replace the Scottish HSTs, which are over 20 years older than the 175s, but..... where is commonsense ???

Would it be commonsense to replace a fleet that's just had a huge amount of money spent on it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren’t East & West Railway looking for diesel units to start the new operation in the next few years?

100mph, 2 or 3 car units, comfortable look quite smart even at 22 years old.
Bletchley depot could easily be adapted to maintain them.

Only issue I can see is there’s to many of them for the limited operation.

They were an option but they have now agreed to sublease some WMT 196s.

 

[JonathanH]

Would it be commonsense to replace a fleet that's just had a huge amount of money spent on it?

Yes, if the operational cost of a replacement fleet is lower and that replacement fleet is available.

There might be a sunk cost but the money is spent. All that means is that the money isn't available for new investment. The operator has had some value for the investment to provide services until stock comes along that is cheaper to operate.

That said, the 175s aren't a big enough fleet to sensibly replace the Scotrail HSTs which is the suggestion raised.

 

[43096]

Yes, if the operational cost of a replacement fleet is lower and that replacement fleet is available.

There might be a sunk cost but the money is spent. All that means is that the money isn't available for new investment. The operator has had some value for the investment to provide services until stock comes along that is cheaper to operate.

The money is spent by the ROSCO and they recover it over the length of the lease. As I understand it the lease is until around 2027. Are you advocating paying for two sets of trains but only using one? Not sure I see the saving there.

 

[317 forever]

Again - other than route clearances, why should where a train worked 15 years ago have any impact on where a train should work now?

Well, there is not much point trying to run class 175s (or any train) on lines where they do not have clearance. I also stated my reasoning that 195s could replace early diesel stock such as 150s and 153s. So, I had already answered your question in my post.

 

[craigybagel]

Well, there is not much point trying to run class 175s (or any train) on lines where they do not have clearance. I also stated my reasoning that 195s could replace early diesel stock such as 150s and 153s. So, I had already answered your question in my post.

When they were new, they weren't cleared anywhere. So by that logic there was no point buying them in the first place. Getting clearance shouldn't be particularly challenging. And once you take away clearance, the fact that the 175s used to run in the North West makes no tangible difference today - it's been so long that it would be like introducing any other new fleet from scratch.

It would be lovely to see Northern replace their 156s and 150s with more modern stock - but even pre Covid it was something of a basket case franchise financially; there's a reason those units ended up there in the first place. In these GBR times, it's hard to see the government stumping up their replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be lovely to see Northern replace their 156s and 150s with more modern stock - but even pre Covid it was something of a basket case franchise financially; there's a reason those units ended up there in the first place. In these GBR times, it's hard to see the government stumping up their replacement.

If it's Northern or scrap, then a decent price will likely be offered as anything is better than nothing.

The leasing industry has presumably learnt that from the beyond-stupid situation that arose with regard to the 350/2s.

 

[craigybagel]

If it's Northern or scrap, then a decent price will likely be offered as anything is better than nothing.

The leasing industry has presumably learnt that from the beyond-stupid situation that arose with regard to the 350/2s.

I admire your optimism

No, I don't think we're going to get to the point where scrap is being considered, I'm just also not convinced that Northern is the best option. But stranger things have happened

 

[Signal_Box]

They were an option but they have now agreed to sublease some WMT 196s.

That would make more sense, I assume LNW crew at Bletchley would sign the route ?

 

[507020]

If it's Northern or scrap, then a decent price will likely be offered as anything is better than nothing.

The leasing industry has presumably learnt that from the beyond-stupid situation that arose with regard to the 350/2s.

What should they have done with them that would not have been beyond stupid?

 

[Philip]

I admire your optimism

No, I don't think we're going to get to the point where scrap is being considered, I'm just also not convinced that Northern is the best option. But stranger things have happened

But there don't seem to be any ideal options; Chiltern has been mentioned recently but it would be a backwards step for TfL if the diesel locos working into Marylebone were to be replaced with much older and more polluting DMUs; the new hybrid Class 168 shows the direction they want to go in.

Also it wouldn't be practical having the 175s split between TOCs; and 27 units would be too many if they were just replacing Chiltern loco hauled stock. (that's if the loco stock gets replaced at all!)

 

[mmh]

Again - other than route clearances, why should where a train worked 15 years ago have any impact on where a train should work now?

Oh, I don't know. Suitability for the route, by which I mean passengers' opinion rather than the railway's.

The railway takes a different approach, and thinks 153s are suitable for Holyhead to Birmingham and Cardiff, 150s likewise, while a 3 car 175 is the perfect choice for an empty shuttle between Llandudno and Llandudno Junction.

 

[507020]

Oh, I don't know. Suitability for the route, by which I mean passengers' opinion rather than the railway's.

The railway takes a different approach, and thinks 153s are suitable for Holyhead to Birmingham and Cardiff, 150s likewise, while a 3 car 175 is the perfect choice for an empty shuttle between Llandudno and Llandudno Junction.

150s and 153s are also apparently considered suitable for services on the Cambrian line despite not being fitted with ETCS or able to proceed down the line. Longer units running empty while shorter ones are full and standing is not a problem unique to Wales though.

 

[craigybagel]

Oh, I don't know. Suitability for the route, by which I mean passengers' opinion rather than the railway's.

The railway takes a different approach, and thinks 153s are suitable for Holyhead to Birmingham and Cardiff, 150s likewise, while a 3 car 175 is the perfect choice for an empty shuttle between Llandudno and Llandudno Junction.

The railway does not think 150s or 153s are suitable for those routes, which is why those units are never booked to appear on those routes. That they do turn up at all is as a last resort, when the alternative is cancellation. If they were deemed suitable, there wouldn't have been such a massive order of stock for TfW, and we probably wouldn't be discussing what to do with the 175s either.

And as I've pointed out many many times, it's all very saying the 175 on the Llandudno shuttle should swap places with the 153 on the longer service, but it's a bit difficult if their diagrams that day start and/or finish several hundred miles apart, which in this case is quite likely. Contrary to popular belief, they don't throw out just any unit anywhere to spite people, a lot of time and thought goes on unit allocation.

150s and 153s are also apparently considered suitable for services on the Cambrian line despite not being fitted with ETCS or able to proceed down the line.

Who is considering those units "suitable"?

 

[Caaardiff]

150s and 153s are also apparently considered suitable for services on the Cambrian line despite not being fitted with ETCS or able to proceed down the line. Longer units running empty while shorter ones are full and standing is not a problem unique to Wales though.

Not sure what this even means. 150's and 153's wouldn't even make it on to the Cambrian because the train crew would never take it.

 

[507020]

Not sure what this even means. 150's and 153's wouldn't even make it on to the Cambrian because the train crew would never take it.

I saw a post somewhere on here recently that a pair of 153s ended up on an Aberystwyth diagram, with the service obviously being cancelled from Shrewsbury, but running as booked through Birmingham.

 

[craigybagel]

But there don't seem to be any ideal options; Chiltern has been mentioned recently but it would be a backwards step for TfL if the diesel locos working into Marylebone were to be replaced with much older and more polluting DMUs; the new hybrid Class 168 shows the direction they want to go in.

Also it wouldn't be practical having the 175s split between TOCs; and 27 units would be too many if they were just replacing Chiltern loco hauled stock. (that's if the loco stock gets replaced at all!)

Indeed, there are no obvious solutions, hence this thread! And the fact that several years after the order for 197s was placed, it seems we're no closer to a definitive answer.

That said, I suspect if TfL were to complain about emissions in this scenario, they'd be told "too bad". Whilst the rest of us might care about such things, can you really see the government seeing beyond the cheapest option? If 175s are cheaper than 68s, will TfL get any kind of say in the matter?

Especially if it means that 168s can be freed up and sent to other TOCs as 170s. Of course, the 175s could also free up 170s if they went to Northern, but you then again you either have the issues of their being more 175s than 170s to replace.

I saw a post somewhere on here recently that a pair of 153s ended up on an Aberystwyth diagram, with the service obviously being cancelled from Shrewsbury, but running as booked through Birmingham.

150s and 153s have frequently ended up on Aberystwyth diagrams down through the years - with the Holyhead and Aberystwyth services interworking at Birmingham International and a limited fleet of 158s available it's somewhat inevitable. When this happens there's normally a set swap at Shrewsbury - as both the Birmingham - Aberystwyth and Aberystwyth- Birmingham services are at Shrewsbury round about the same time, the passengers all swap over and the 150/153 goes back to Birmingham and then Holyhead.

 

[Caaardiff]

I saw a post somewhere on here recently that a pair of 153s ended up on an Aberystwyth diagram, with the service obviously being cancelled from Shrewsbury, but running as booked through Birmingham.

150's or 153's covering 158's will always get turnaround at Shrewsbury. The complication is that Holyhead - Birmingham services form Birmingham - Aberystwyth services. It's a simple swap at Shrewsbury to send the Aberystwyth - Birmingham train back to Aberystwyth and the Birmingham - Aberystwyth back to Birmingham. In fact, it happens all the time.
So no, no-one would even attempt to take a 150 or 153 on the Cambrian.
As for why it was cancelled it would likely be for any number of reasons. The line between Shrewsbury - Machynlleth has been closed since the storm too?

 

[Philip]

Indeed, there are no obvious solutions, hence this thread! And the fact that several years after the order for 197s was placed, it seems we're no closer to a definitive answer.

That said, I suspect if TfL were to complain about emissions in this scenario, they'd be told "too bad". Whilst the rest of us might care about such things, can you really see the government seeing beyond the cheapest option? If 175s are cheaper than 68s, will TfL get any kind of say in the matter?

Especially if it means that 168s can be freed up and sent to other TOCs as 170s. Of course, the 175s could also free up 170s if they went to Northern, but you then again you either have the issues of their being more 175s than 170s to replace.

On the subject of the class 168s, is it known whether the whole fleet is going to be converted to a diesel/battery hybrid set up, or is it just the unit that was completed recently?

North East England may be a shout for 175s, to replace 156s and 158s, although there's also the issue about having a suitable Alstom depot not far away, so that reliability doesn't suffer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would make more sense, I assume LNW crew at Bletchley would sign the route ?

I haven't seen anything official, but it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up operated by WMT given whose units are being used.

What should they have done with them that would not have been beyond stupid?

Not overcharged for the leases, resulting in WMT calling their bluff and replacing units which are perfectly good and very popular (yes, even the /2s) with new ones, and then those /2s as yet having no home.

 

[HSTEd]

Where does the money come from? Even in British Rail days, in the early 1990s before privatisation, John Prescott was on record as saying British Rail should use leasing as a means of acquiring rolling stock because there wasn't any government money on the table for fleets British Rail wanted to introduce.

Politicians prefer leasing because it allows them to lie to the British public about the state of the public finances.
Like most Labour politicians of his era, Prescott was obsessed with PFI for this reason, as well as other more cynical political reasons. And virtually all those PFIs have turned out to be an utter disaster.

Once you drop insane capital restrictions that have no basis in financial reality, this problem vanishes and the taxpayer saves vast sums.

[Whilst a PFI solution like leasing allows you to pretend the state is spending less money, the deteroriation in the states financial situation is actually worse than a capital spend, and as a result it likely has the opposite to claimed affect. Unless you believe the markets don't price in risks from future payments on leases that are near impossible to escape as opposed to debt that is near impossible escape]

 

[Blindtraveler]

Logical answer I would have said was 156 replacement on the west highland and Glasgow and south western. Ok so there speed capability would not be needed to Oban and fort William etc but would be very useful on services via Dumfries particularly the new clock Face hourly Carlisle service which spends much of its time cruising at 75 mph and indeed spends 15 minutes of each journey belting down the wcml with the power handle fall open. There could be a significant cut in journey times with faster units as well as less frustration to the pendolinos and voyagers and 397s that keep having to pull up behind them

 

[43096]

Not overcharged for the leases, resulting in WMT calling their bluff and replacing units which are perfectly good and very popular (yes, even the /2s) with new ones, and then those /2s as yet having no home.

Still peddling your nonsense about overcharging. Back when the 350/2s and 379s were ordered the financial markets were in a very different position and financing was significantly more expensive than in the last few years. That is not overcharging; they may be more expensive, but that is rather different from overcharging. It should also be pointed out that:
- the fleets were competed for financing/ownership, presumably Porterbrook offered the best deal for the 350s.
- if there was overcharging, why does that not also apply to the 172s ordered at the same time from the same ROSCO? If they were that expensive, why have WMT not ordered more 196s to replace them?