Class 175 future speculation

[A0wen]

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 ???

Would it really be a waste of money ? There are 27 of them and they are all 20+ years old now.

They are also non-standard - a bit like the 365s a victim of being an early example of its type and not entirely successful. Had the 175s been more reliable then perhaps there would be more demand for them, but instead it didn't lead to more orders because they were quite problematic.

And before anyone says "But BR would have..." - no they wouldn't. I present the example of the Class 125 DMU - 20 built in 1958, not especially reliable and non-standard mechanicals. Withdrawn around their 20th birthday when the GN Suburban electrification went live.

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.

As ever Bletchleyite being selective with the facts to suit his own argument.

The bit overlooked about the replacement of the 350/2s is LNW needed additional stock in any case for their pre-Covid service plans.

There are 37 Class 350/2s, plus 8 Class 319s with LNW - there are 45 730/1 and 730/2 s on order for LNW - BUT these are 5 car units, so running as 1 or 2 unit formation offers far more seating than the current 350/2s do - especially when comparing 8 car 350/2 to 10 car 730.

The 350/2s are much more likely to find a home than the 175s IMO - mainly because they are more standard.

 

[507020]

The 350/2s are much more likely to find a home than the 175s IMO - mainly because they are more standard.

But the 350/2s are electric and the 175s are Diesel, so barring any new electrification, 175s are all they can run.

 

[A0wen]

But the 350/2s are electric and the 175s are Diesel, so barring any new electrification, 175s are all they can run.

Well you've got the MML being electrified. You've also got the 319s in the NW which haven't exactly excelled at their duties. And I suspect being Desiros they could probably be converted to 3rd rail operation if needed as well.

The 175s are mechanically "unique" (Yes, I know they are closely related to the 180s) but that limits their usability with other DMU fleets. And they are configured as 'long distance' units - which limits their usability on other routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bit overlooked about the replacement of the 350/2s is LNW needed additional stock in any case for their pre-Covid service plans.

They do. There were other options, such as ordering something more specifically suited to the Trent Valley service such as 7-car 80x (which would have given a decent speed-up to those services by starting the push for 125mph non-tilt running and made them more InterCity in feel than a 350/2), which would then have displaced 350s onto the slower services.

Could even have used one on a named "The Master Cobbler" (NMP, MKC and EUS only) to keep you Northamptonians happy

There are 37 Class 350/2s, plus 8 Class 319s with LNW - there are 45 730/1 and 730/2 s on order for LNW - BUT these are 5 car units, so running as 1 or 2 unit formation offers far more seating than the current 350/2s do - especially when comparing 8 car 350/2 to 10 car 730.

The problem here is that 8.350 is a sweet spot for south WCML services at most times of day other than the morning/evening peak. 4 is too short for almost everything, but 12 is excessive for all but a few peak-time services and the Saturday evening "vomit comets". With 730s, your choice is between 5-car (equivalent to 6.350) which is too short for almost everything, and 10-car (12.350) which is too long.

They only make sense in the context of "we'll use 5.730 in place of 8.390 and the proles can stand", which is an unacceptable policy on interurban services. Off-peak usage on LNR has in my observation returned to very close to what it was - it's commuting that remains down.

The 350/2s are much more likely to find a home than the 175s IMO - mainly because they are more standard.

Back on topic...I would agree with that to some extent, though 175s are still very similar to Sprinters (e.g. the same driveline) so would fit easily enough into a TOC with a mainly Sprinter* fleet such as Northern or Chiltern.

* I'm counting Turbos and 168/170 as "Sprinters" because they aren't massively different from a 158 with doors at thirds - they still have the same hydraulic drivelines and independent powered vehicles.

The 175s are mechanically "unique"

They're not really. They have Cummins engines and Voith hydraulic transmission, the same as almost every other 15x, 16x and 170. They are to all intents and purposes Sprinters. Being built by Alstom "first time around" (nee MetCam) they are in essence fancy 156s.

OK, they don't (I think) have Westcode brakes and they have Scharfenberg couplers instead of BSIs, but that was never a massive problem for FNW any more than the (genuinely mechanically different) 195s are.

 

[Neptune]

You've also got the 319s in the NW which haven't exactly excelled at their duties.

The Northern 319’s will be replaced by 17 x WMT 323’s once they are displaced by their 730’s.

Regarding 175’s and despite them being a nice unit to ride on I suspect their non standard design (to whoever keeps saying it, no they aren’t just updated 156’s, they’re very different) may mean they end up scrapped.

 

[Philip]

The Northern 319’s will be replaced by 17 x WMT 323’s once they are displaced by their 730’s.

Regarding 175’s and despite them being a nice unit to ride on I suspect their non standard design (to whoever keeps saying it, no they aren’t just updated 156’s, they’re very different) may mean they end up scrapped.

They could replace 156s and 158s at Northern or ScotRail; 158s at GWR; 156s at EMR; 165s at Chiltern...I think any of these options would be more likely than being scrapped at this point, because they're in good condition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding 175’s and despite them being a nice unit to ride on I suspect their non standard design (to whoever keeps saying it, no they aren’t just updated 156’s, they’re very different) may mean they end up scrapped.

What is the substantial practical difference between a 175 and say a 170, which is only not a Sprinter/Turbo* in name? They have the Cummins-Voith driveline the same as any Sprinter.

* Sprinters and Turbos are basically the same thing.

 

[MattRat]

They could replace 156s and 158s at Northern or ScotRail; 158s at GWR; 156s at EMR; 165s at Chiltern...I think any of these options would be more likely than being scrapped at this point, because they're in good condition.

Why not 170s at Northern? They are both technically none standard fleets, so not much really changes for Northern, and then the 170s can replace the 158s at EMR.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that this is about the future of the 175s. I would ask that anyone wishing to discuss the future of other rolling stock starts a new thread to do so rather than using this one. You can also use multi-quite (the "+Quote" button at the bottom of posts) and then insert those posts into the new thread to give context if there's specific posts that you wish to reply to that would be off-topic here.

 

[A0wen]

They could replace 156s and 158s at Northern or ScotRail; 158s at GWR; 156s at EMR; 165s at Chiltern...I think any of these options would be more likely than being scrapped at this point, because they're in good condition.

The 175s are 23m coaches, 11 x 2 car and 16 x 3 car (total 27).

Chiltern's 165s are also 23m however they have 28 x 2 car and 11 x 3 car - so not enough. And you'd need to fit tripcocks which may not be straightforward.

On the 156s also 23m but all are 2 car and the numbers in use are Scotrail - 43, EMR - 21, Northern - 50. So too many for EMR, too few for Scotrail or Northern.

On the 158s again 23m - those in use are: Northen - 35 x 2, 8 x 3 - so not enough 175s to replace those, EMR - 26 x 2 - so *possibly* the 2 cars could be replaced (but I doubt it), GWR 11 x 2 and 7 x 3 - so too many 175s and I'm not sure why this is "better" than sticking with the 158s ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 175s are 23m coaches, 11 x 2 car and 16 x 3 car (total 27).

Chiltern's 165s are also 23m however they have 28 x 2 car and 11 x 3 car - so not enough. And you'd need to fit tripcocks which may not be straightforward.

The Chiltern argument is not that you'd replace all the 165s, but rather you'd replace the LHCS plus the few used on the mainline (which cause issues by way of their 75mph top speed), leaving a smaller fleet used only on Aylesbury via Amersham services.

On the 156s also 23m but all are 2 car and the numbers in use are Scotrail - 43, EMR - 21, Northern - 50. So too many for EMR, too few for Scotrail or Northern.

You don't need to replace all of the 150/156s, just some of them.

On the 158s again 23m - those in use are: Northen - 35 x 2, 8 x 3 - so not enough 175s to replace those, EMR - 26 x 2 - so *possibly* the 2 cars could be replaced (but I doubt it), GWR 11 x 2 and 7 x 3 - so too many 175s and I'm not sure why this is "better" than sticking with the 158s ?

I'd agree it would not be sensible to use them to scrap 158s. They need to trigger a cascade to get rid of 1980s units.

 

[43096]

What is the substantial practical difference between a 175 and say a 170, which is only not a Sprinter/Turbo* in name? They have the Cummins-Voith driveline the same as any Sprinter.

* Sprinters and Turbos are basically the same thing.

175s have the later design of Cummins engine than the Sprinters and the 170s have totally different - MTU - engines from any Sprinter type.

 

[Mikey C]

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!)

As far as the local residents of Marylebone are concerned, isn't it the NOISE of the 68s which is the biggest issue, rather than pollution, so in the short term it would solve one problem?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as the local residents of Marylebone are concerned, isn't it the NOISE of the 68s which is the biggest issue, rather than pollution, so in the short term it would solve one problem?

Yes. 68s are less polluting than any Chiltern DMU except the one-off hybrid unit, but they are hellishly noisy.

 

[Mikey C]

What is the substantial practical difference between a 175 and say a 170, which is only not a Sprinter/Turbo* in name? They have the Cummins-Voith driveline the same as any Sprinter.

* Sprinters and Turbos are basically the same thing.

The Turbostars have RR/MTU engines rather than Cummins, so are a bit different from both the 175s and the Sprinters and Network Turbos.

The 175s, 180s and 185s have Cummins power, along with the DEMU 22Xs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Turbostars have RR/MTU engines rather than Cummins, so are a bit different from both the 175s and the Sprinters and Network Turbos.

The 175s, 180s and 185s have Cummins power, along with the DEMU 22Xs.

Thanks, thought they were all Cummins.

Most 15x are also Cummins of course.

 

[Anonymous10]

Would it really be a waste of money ? There are 27 of them and they are all 20+ years old now.

They are also non-standard - a bit like the 365s a victim of being an early example of its type and not entirely successful. Had the 175s been more reliable then perhaps there would be more demand for them, but instead it didn't lead to more orders because they were quite problematic.

And before anyone says "But BR would have..." - no they wouldn't. I present the example of the Class 125 DMU - 20 built in 1958, not especially reliable and non-standard mechanicals. Withdrawn around their 20th birthday when the GN Suburban electrification went live.





As ever Bletchleyite being selective with the facts to suit his own argument.

The bit overlooked about the replacement of the 350/2s is LNW needed additional stock in any case for their pre-Covid service plans.

There are 37 Class 350/2s, plus 8 Class 319s with LNW - there are 45 730/1 and 730/2 s on order for LNW - BUT these are 5 car units, so running as 1 or 2 unit formation offers far more seating than the current 350/2s do - especially when comparing 8 car 350/2 to 10 car 730.

The 350/2s are much more likely to find a home than the 175s IMO - mainly because they are more standard.

as we are all aware theres alot of class 15x due for replacement. there are fleets smaller than 27 units and they have settled down now with tfw

 

[Anonymous10]

They could replace 156s and 158s at Northern or ScotRail; 158s at GWR; 156s at EMR; 165s at Chiltern...I think any of these options would be more likely than being scrapped at this point, because they're in good condition.

also could replace the gwr castle fleet

 

[Clansman]

They could replace 156s and 158s at Northern or ScotRail; 158s at GWR; 156s at EMR; 165s at Chiltern...I think any of these options would be more likely than being scrapped at this point, because they're in good condition.

They're more likely to be scrapped than head to ScotRail. No operational need or benefit for them to be up here.

In fact with their poorer reliability, higher leasing costs, and lack of interoperability with any other fleet - they'd make things much much worse for ScotRail.

 

[craigybagel]

They're more likely to be scrapped than head to ScotRail. No operational need or benefit for them to be up here.

In fact with their poorer reliability, higher leasing costs, and lack of interoperability with any other fleet - they'd make things much much worse for ScotRail.

Whilst I do agree with some of what you state, and I'm not expecting them to end up at Scotrail myself either, I'm curious as to your source for the reliability figures that suggests they're worse than the existing ScotRail fleet?

 

[Clansman]

Whilst I do agree with some of what you state, and I'm not expecting them to end up at Scotrail myself either, I'm curious as to your source for the reliability figures that suggests they're worse than the existing ScotRail fleet?

The Golden Spanners 2021: mixed fortunes for fleet reliability

With late deliveries and technical problems compounding the impact of the pandemic, Industry and Technology Editor ROGER FORD tries to extract information from the mixed data in a troubled year

www.modernrailways.com

Looking at the latest figures they are near enough level pegging, which for a 10 year difference between the fleets is pretty eye opening as it shows that as a longer term investment that reliability doesn't do anything to make a significant case for 175s vs 158s. And that's after turning a blind eye to there not being enough 175s to replace 158s up in Scotland!

 

[Caaardiff]

I would've thought GWR would be a good bet as they could replace one of their fleet for the 175's, rather than say Northern who would just be adding another type.
How many of the routes GWR use 150's on would be suitable for 158 cascade or 175? Are there any gauging issues that restrict routes to only 150s?
If none, the 175's could replace the 150s and also have some left to put on other routes, freeing up 158's or 165/166's.
If some then 175's could cover for however many 150's they can and replace the 18 158's. Any surplus could boost capacity.

In the short term TfW could make good use of a few 150's until the CVL trains are in service and then move them on to Northern if still needed or retire them completely. The 158's could go to Northern.

How much say in this situation does the DfT have? You'd think they would be pushing TOC's to maximise capacity and the attractiveness of travelling by rail when there's perfectly good units becoming available.

More importantly, the introduction of the 197s with TfW isn't exactly going to plan, there's lots of talk of poor reliability issues still being ironed out and little to no train crew training being started yet. Only DI's it seems.
On a different subject, the Class 231 testing in South Wales is apparently doing very well and reliability is proving very positive.

In terms of actual carriages the GWR 150's and 158's give 71 carriages and the TfW gives 70.

 

[craigybagel]

The Golden Spanners 2021: mixed fortunes for fleet reliability

With late deliveries and technical problems compounding the impact of the pandemic, Industry and Technology Editor ROGER FORD tries to extract information from the mixed data in a troubled year

www.modernrailways.com

Looking at the latest figures they are near enough level pegging, which for a 10 year difference between the fleets is pretty eye opening as it shows that as a longer term investment that reliability doesn't do anything to make a significant case for 175s vs 158s. And that's after turning a blind eye to there not being enough 175s to replace 158s up in Scotland!

Fair enough. I was worried it was based around their reputation from when they were first introduced when they were genuinely unreliable. As your figured show, today they're no worse then other DMUs. Certainly in my own experience working on them they give a lot less trouble than the Sprinters we work.

I would've thought GWR would be a good bet as they could replace one of their fleet for the 175's, rather than say Northern who would just be adding another type.
How many of the routes GWR use 150's on would be suitable for 158 cascade or 175? Are there any gauging issues that restrict routes to only 150s?
If none, the 175's could replace the 150s and also have some left to put on other routes, freeing up 158's or 165/166's.
If some then 175's could cover for however many 150's they can and replace the 18 158's. Any surplus could boost capacity.

In the short term TfW could make good use of a few 150's until the CVL trains are in service and then move them on to Northern if still needed or retire them completely. The 158's could go to Northern.

How much say in this situation does the DfT have? You'd think they would be pushing TOC's to maximise capacity and the attractiveness of travelling by rail when there's perfectly good units becoming available.

More importantly, the introduction of the 197s with TfW isn't exactly going to plan, there's lots of talk of poor reliability issues still being ironed out and little to no train crew training being started yet. Only DI's it seems.
On a different subject, the Class 231 testing in South Wales is apparently doing very well and reliability is proving very positive.

In terms of actual carriages the GWR 150's and 158's give 71 carriages and the TfW gives 70.

Aren't the GWR 150s mostly used either on the Devon,& Cornwall branches, or on the busy local services around Exeter? Neither really lend themselves to 175s.

Now as a cheaper alternative to the Castle sets, that might have more potential.

You do raise an interesting question about the DfT and how much influence they're likely to have. In these troubled times I'm struggling to see them agreeing to fund the introduction of 175s to another franchise unless it comes with a tangible financial benefit. I don't think being s nice way to retire some 150s will cut the mustard - it needs to either release stock for other routes in turn where they're needed, or they need to be a much cheaper/efficient option over the stock they'd replace. We're often told the short HST sets at Scotrail and GWR are expensive to run; obviously DfT don't have much say at Scotrail, but at GWR on the other hand.....

 

[A0wen]

also could replace the gwr castle fleet

Biggest problem with that idea is there are no corridor connections between units, so would probably lead to additional crewing costs.

How many of the routes GWR use 150's on would be suitable for 158 cascade or 175? Are there any gauging issues that restrict routes to only 150s?
If none, the 175's could replace the 150s and also have some left to put on other routes, freeing up 158's or 165/166's.

Issue there might be that 150s are 20m whereas the 156/158s are 23m - sometimes rural stations have short platforms with signal positioning and level crossing positioning to consider. Going back it was the reason the Marston Vale was allocated a 150 & 153 and subsequently the 230s. Longer units wouldn't have fitted without expensive infrasyructure changes.

 

[tomuk]

Thanks, thought they were all Cummins.

Most 15x are also Cummins of course.

Don't forget that about ba third of the 158s (49 sets?) and all the 165/166 Turbos are Perkins (Nee Rolls Royce Diesel, Shrewsbury)

 

[Caaardiff]

Biggest problem with that idea is there are no corridor connections between units, so would probably lead to additional crewing costs.



Issue there might be that 150s are 20m whereas the 156/158s are 23m - sometimes rural stations have short platforms with signal positioning and level crossing positioning to consider. Going back it was the reason the Marston Vale was allocated a 150 & 153 and subsequently the 230s. Longer units wouldn't have fitted without expensive infrasyructure changes.

TfW only single crew double sets. GWR also double up 165/166's on a daily basis.

175's also operate on short platforms throughout the TfW network using local door. Unless it's a large amount of short platforms, there's no reason why it couldn't be done with 175s.

 

[Bikeman78]

Fair enough. I was worried it was based around their reputation from when they were first introduced when they were genuinely unreliable. As your figured show, today they're no worse then other DMUs. Certainly in my own experience working on them they give a lot less trouble than the Sprinters we work.

They are the most reliable Welsh fleet by quite a margin although the second place class 150s are narrowing the gap. I can only think of one failure that has affected me in 20 odd years. Likewise the 317s which have the same MTIN, only one failure in 20 years. So either I'm very lucky or an MTIN of 10,000 miles is good enough to give little concern to passengers.

 

[Anonymous10]

Biggest problem with that idea is there are no corridor connections between units, so would probably lead to additional crewing costs.



Issue there might be that 150s are 20m whereas the 156/158s are 23m - sometimes rural stations have short platforms with signal positioning and level crossing positioning to consider. Going back it was the reason the Marston Vale was allocated a 150 & 153 and subsequently the 230s. Longer units wouldn't have fitted without expensive infrasyructure changes.

tfw operate their units non gangwayed as do gwr with 80x without additional crewing so i fail to understand how the lack of a gangway would mean more crww

 

[A0wen]

tfw operate their units non gangwayed as do gwr with 80x without additional crewing so i fail to understand how the lack of a gangway would mean more crww

Compared to the Castle sets - so currently a Castlecset will operate with driver plus guard who presumably also does ticket sales?

If there are no corridor connections, then eother the ticket revenue takes a hit or you double up the staff? It's a bit different to the situation on EMR where whilst the 360s aren't corridor most of the stations they serve are barriered.

 

[Caaardiff]

Surely no different to how GWR already operate with multiple 165/166s?

Or just put revenue collection staff on certain services.