Class 175 future speculation

[JonathanH]

The Silver sets are longer so some coupled diagrams to replace those at least would be sensible.

Yes, but they don't do much - key peak workings and a trip to Birmingham and back.

Also I’m sure you must agree that if the 175s did come over, certainly pairing all 168/0 and 175/0 diagrams at least would be the sensible option, particularly the latter which will run with increased dwell times on busy services.

Do the 2-car 168/3s always work in multiple now?

On the face of it, the full 175 fleet of 70 vehicles is far in excess of the number of coaches needed to displace the silver sets. There are some 16x reported to be out of service but that isn't really reason to bring in extra stock. Some sort of 175 > 168 > 158 cascade might work but introduces a large training requirement at Chiltern.

Splitting the 175 fleet seems a bit awkward given its size.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is big pressure on Chiltern over noise and emissions pollution from the locos.

Are the 68s actually any worse in terms of air quality emissions than the 175s, or Chiltern's existing DMUs that flow in and out of Marylebone all day? The 68s are a fair bit newer so would be compliant with more stringent emissions regulations (Wiki states stage IIIa) than a 168 or an unmodified 175 (the hybrid modification would presumably involve fitting a modern diesel engine in the 175s which would meet the latest standards).

 

[JonathanH]

Are the 68s actually any worse in terms of air quality emissions than the 175s, or Chiltern's existing DMUs that flow in and out of Marylebone all day?

They are worse in terms of noise and that is as much a problem with the neighbours as the air quality. The noise issue gives a perception that they must be bad for emissions, regardless of the facts.

 

[class397tpe]

There is big pressure on Chiltern over noise and emissions pollution from the locos.

Thanks for the reply. Yep 68s are certainly very loud - being such a modern loco, I wonder why it is they are so damn loud compared to other locos (e.g. a Class 43 is much quieter).

 

[Energy]

Yes, but they don't do much - key peak workings and a trip to Birmingham and back.


Do the 2-car 168/3s always work in multiple now?

On the face of it, the full 175 fleet of 70 vehicles is far in excess of the number of coaches needed to displace the silver sets. There are some 16x reported to be out of service but that isn't really reason to bring in extra stock. Some sort of 175 > 168 > 158 cascade might work but introduces a large training requirement at Chiltern.

Splitting the 175 fleet seems a bit awkward given its size.

Or chiltern has all of the 168s and all of the 175s? They were short of stock pre covid with many trains being shortened, the 172/1s have also been lost though these didn't have particularly high utilisation.

 

[JonathanH]

Or chiltern has all of the 168s and all of the 175s? They were short of stock pre covid with many trains being shortened, the 172/1s have also been lost though these didn't have particularly high utilisation.

Do they even have enough depot capacity to take on 70 extra vehicles? At a time when other operators are seeing reduction in fleet size, it would seem odd to have a substantial increase, particularly with the need to cut diesel emissions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or chiltern has all of the 168s and all of the 175s? They were short of stock pre covid with many trains being shortened, the 172/1s have also been lost though these didn't have particularly high utilisation.

With there being a big shortage of 170s, one could envisage Chiltern getting all 175s and then releasing 168s to other operators, converted to 170s by changing the coupler pinout to be Sprinter compatible.

Northern could certainly make use of more 170s, possibly better use than 175s due to the door positions. 175s back on Barrow/Windermere might be nice, for instance, but that'd mean end doors on Castlefield. Or, for the same reason, EMR could take them for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

 

[The Planner]

Do they even have enough depot capacity to take on 70 extra vehicles? At a time when other operators are seeing reduction in fleet size, it would seem odd to have a substantial increase, particularly with the need to cut diesel emissions.

No, and apparently DfT have been made aware of that glaring issue. I still don't believe the 3 car multiples Chiltern operation proposal is dead either.

 

[CR165022]

With there being a big shortage of 170s, one could envisage Chiltern getting all 175s and then releasing 168s to other operators, converted to 170s by changing the coupler pinout to be Sprinter compatible.

The problem with releasing the 168s is that the timetable would need to be changed significantly, as most 168 diagrams interchange between Birmingham services and Aylesbury services. An example being that some units are put onto Marylebone - aylesbury via amersham services in the evening after a day of working to Birmingham/Oxford, in order for them to get to the depot, the 175s wouldnt be able to do this as they wouldn't have the correct equipment to allow them to run over the met.

 

[Mikey C]

Argh if your going to hybrid the 175s fit the MTU solution not the tinpot 165 Hydrive system.

The 175s are Cummins powered, whereas the 168s like all Turbostars are MTU/RR powered, so I assume the HybridFLEX conversion for the 168 wouldn't work on the 175s, without major changes.

 

[tomuk]

The 175s are Cummins powered, whereas the 168s like all Turbostars are MTU/RR powered, so I assume the HybridFLEX conversion for the 168 wouldn't work on the 175s, without major changes.

Yes you would have to build a 175 compatible powerpack but the apart from the engine the powertrain is very similar to the Turbostars.

 

[DanNCL]

I’m not convinced the 175s will end up with Chiltern. The end doors aren’t suitable for London commuter work, not to mention the new requirement for them to have hybrid modifications (something not yet developed for the Cummins engines of the 175s), the requirement to be fitted with tripcocks for use between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham, and the inability to modify them to work with Chiltern’s current DMU fleet.

The 175s would also not be ideal for GWR, you’d be replacing one microfleet (the HSTs) with another and reducing capacity at the same time. It would make more sense for GWR to receive cascaded 158s.

To me it seems the most logical place to send the 175s once TFW are done with them is to Northern for use in the North East. It would be easy enough to split the Cumbrian Coast off from the Tyne Valley (at present only one diagram actually interworks between the two routes), which would leave just the right number of 156 diagrams at Heaton for the 175s to take over. Heaton would retain the 158s alongside the 175s in the short term but the mooted hydrogen units would eventually replace the 158s in the North East, leaving the North East with hydrogen units for Saltburn - Bishop Auckland and the Whitby branch, and 175s for everything else. It would allow the Morpeth services to use 90 mph paths (going up to 100 mph when the 158s also go) instead of the current 75 mph paths potentially boosting capacity on the ECML.

There isn’t actually anything preventing 3 car units from running in the North East so 3 car 175s would not be an issue.

A few pages back I saw mention of the wheel lathe issue at Heaton. Heaton has never had a wheel lathe and there are no longer any plans for it to gain one. The North East’s wheel lathe has always been at Gosforth - British Rail continued to use the lathe at Gosforth when Metro opened, but after the connection from the ECML to Metro at Benton was lifted in the late 1980s all units from the North East have had to go to Neville Hill for the wheel lathe. It’s not a huge issue, with the 156s the moves are usually carried out by ROG so there would be no need to train York or Leeds crews on 175s for moves to and from Neville Hill should the 175s go to Heaton.

 

[IanXC]

I’m not convinced the 175s will end up with Chiltern. The end doors aren’t suitable for London commuter work, not to mention the new requirement for them to have hybrid modifications (something not yet developed for the Cummins engines of the 175s), the requirement to be fitted with tripcocks for use between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham, and the inability to modify them to work with Chiltern’s current DMU fleet.

The 175s would also not be ideal for GWR, you’d be replacing one microfleet (the HSTs) with another and reducing capacity at the same time. It would make more sense for GWR to receive cascaded 158s.

To me it seems the most logical place to send the 175s once TFW are done with them is to Northern for use in the North East. It would be easy enough to split the Cumbrian Coast off from the Tyne Valley (at present only one diagram actually interworks between the two routes), which would leave just the right number of 156 diagrams at Heaton for the 175s to take over. Heaton would retain the 158s alongside the 175s in the short term but the mooted hydrogen units would eventually replace the 158s in the North East, leaving the North East with hydrogen units for Saltburn - Bishop Auckland and the Whitby branch, and 175s for everything else. It would allow the Morpeth services to use 90 mph paths (going up to 100 mph when the 158s also go) instead of the current 75 mph paths potentially boosting capacity on the ECML.

There isn’t actually anything preventing 3 car units from running in the North East so 3 car 175s would not be an issue.

A few pages back I saw mention of the wheel lathe issue at Heaton. Heaton has never had a wheel lathe and there are no longer any plans for it to gain one. The North East’s wheel lathe has always been at Gosforth - British Rail continued to use the lathe at Gosforth when Metro opened, but after the connection from the ECML to Metro at Benton was lifted in the late 1980s all units from the North East have had to go to Neville Hill for the wheel lathe. It’s not a huge issue, with the 156s the moves are usually carried out by ROG so there would be no need to train York or Leeds crews on 175s for moves to and from Neville Hill should the 175s go to Heaton.

156s aren't going to last forever, so the question of what can be route cleared and replace them in them on the Cumbrian Coast will have to be dealt with eventually.

Some routes in the North East desperately need a capacity increase, so rather than not being a problem, 3 car units would actually be a solution!

According to the Driver route knowledge thread Northern's York drivers sign Newcastle to Leeds and 156s so presumably they do the moves rather than ROG. As they also sign 170s the training for 175s would presumably be less than the North East drivers would need, so might make sense to keep the same arrangements for getting to the Wheel Lathe as now.

 

[Mikey C]

I’m not convinced the 175s will end up with Chiltern. The end doors aren’t suitable for London commuter work, not to mention the new requirement for them to have hybrid modifications (something not yet developed for the Cummins engines of the 175s), the requirement to be fitted with tripcocks for use between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham, and the inability to modify them to work with Chiltern’s current DMU fleet.

The 175s would also not be ideal for GWR, you’d be replacing one microfleet (the HSTs) with another and reducing capacity at the same time. It would make more sense for GWR to receive cascaded 158s.

To me it seems the most logical place to send the 175s once TFW are done with them is to Northern for use in the North East. It would be easy enough to split the Cumbrian Coast off from the Tyne Valley (at present only one diagram actually interworks between the two routes), which would leave just the right number of 156 diagrams at Heaton for the 175s to take over. Heaton would retain the 158s alongside the 175s in the short term but the mooted hydrogen units would eventually replace the 158s in the North East, leaving the North East with hydrogen units for Saltburn - Bishop Auckland and the Whitby branch, and 175s for everything else. It would allow the Morpeth services to use 90 mph paths (going up to 100 mph when the 158s also go) instead of the current 75 mph paths potentially boosting capacity on the ECML.

There isn’t actually anything preventing 3 car units from running in the North East so 3 car 175s would not be an issue.

A few pages back I saw mention of the wheel lathe issue at Heaton. Heaton has never had a wheel lathe and there are no longer any plans for it to gain one. The North East’s wheel lathe has always been at Gosforth - British Rail continued to use the lathe at Gosforth when Metro opened, but after the connection from the ECML to Metro at Benton was lifted in the late 1980s all units from the North East have had to go to Neville Hill for the wheel lathe. It’s not a huge issue, with the 156s the moves are usually carried out by ROG so there would be no need to train York or Leeds crews on 175s for moves to and from Neville Hill should the 175s go to Heaton.

The loco hauled Mk 3s have end doors, and that isn't a major issue on the longer runs. Indeed the 175s have wider doors? Also they wouldn't be working on the Amersham route anyway.

 

[Energy]

Do they even have enough depot capacity to take on 70 extra vehicles? At a time when other operators are seeing reduction in fleet size, it would seem odd to have a substantial increase, particularly with the need to cut diesel emissions.

Its not 70 extra, they've already lost 4 172/1s (8 cars) and will loose the 6mk3 sets (31 cars), overall the gain is 31 cars.

As for space is you take away the space taken up by 8 68s and 6 DVTs you only need 17 cars of extra space.

 

[Philip]

With there being a big shortage of 170s, one could envisage Chiltern getting all 175s and then releasing 168s to other operators, converted to 170s by changing the coupler pinout to be Sprinter compatible.

Northern could certainly make use of more 170s, possibly better use than 175s due to the door positions. 175s back on Barrow/Windermere might be nice, for instance, but that'd mean end doors on Castlefield. Or, for the same reason, EMR could take them for the Liverpool to Nottingham service.

Why would Chiltern let go of 168s when they have already started the hybrid conversion work on them? Replacing them with 175s would mean more preparation work as it's a different engine and without any form of hybrid technology. Also it would mean a lot of unnecessary extra crew training and the work the units would need to clear them on the lines out of London.

If any 175s go to Chiltern, it would surely only be a small handful to replace the loco-hauled sets, with the rest of the fleet going elsewhere. Perhaps if this was to happen then it would be better if they replaced 168s on non-London routes around the West Midlands and thus have 168s entirely focused on the London services?

I remember reading a post on here a couple of weeks ago which suggested that Chiltern were looking to keep the loco-hauled sets for another year or more and that the DfT were considering it, so perhaps they're not taken with the 175 idea.

North East seems a better shout.

Its not 70 extra, they've already lost 4 172/1s (8 cars) and will loose the 6mk3 sets (31 cars), overall the gain is 31 cars.

As for space is you take away the space taken up by 8 68s and 6 DVTs you only need 17 cars of extra space.

As stated above they have not yet lost any loco-hauled sets and recent indications suggest they're looking to keep them for another couple of years at least, probably until the 168 hybrid project is completed. The report was published 6 months ago so plans or ideas may have changed since then.

 

[Bikeman78]

Thanks for the reply. Yep 68s are certainly very loud - being such a modern loco, I wonder why it is they are so damn loud compared to other locos (e.g. a Class 43 is much quieter).

The 43s weren't always quiet, though I guess you mean the modern MTU engines. See video below of a pair of Paxman Valentas departing from Newcastle. Admittedly I think they were quieter than 68s when idling.

 

[87015]

Much 68 noise is because the space is taken up by more emissions reduction equipment than a traditional modern silencer. So they are cleaner, but louder than other contemporary stuff. They are shut down at terminals religiously now as well.

 

[craigybagel]

I do find it somewhat amusing this talk of noisy locomotives - when part of the reason for the 175s becoming available in the first place is TfW procuring more 67s. Having one of those under the shed at Piccadilly every few hours is going to be quite something.....

 

[tomuk]

Why would Chiltern let go of 168s when they have already started the hybrid conversion work on them?

The hybrid conversion is only for one unit. A second will be done as part of the same Arriva/DFT business plan that mentions a potential Hydrive conversion for any 175s that Chiltern may be running in the future.
The business plan is also clear that Arriva need to submit a cost benefit analysis to DfT if the trial is a success before they will agree to convert more.

 

[CR165022]

The hybrid conversion is only for one unit. A second will be done as part of the same Arriva/DFT business plan that mentions a potential Hydrive conversion for any 175s that Chiltern may be running in the future.
The business plan is also clear that Arriva need to submit a cost benefit analysis to DfT if the trial is a success before they will agree to convert more.

The second unit was already planned, 168321 was sent off for conversion back last year but was eventually sent back untouched

 

[Rhydgaled]

I’m not convinced the 175s will end up with Chiltern. The end doors aren’t suitable for London commuter work, not to mention the new requirement for them to have hybrid modifications (something not yet developed for the Cummins engines of the 175s)

Angel (or whichever ROSCO owns the 175s) have stated that a hybrid 175 could be done - it was one of their arguments trying to persuade TfW to keep the 175s.

 

[Philip]

Angel (or whichever ROSCO owns the 175s) have stated that a hybrid 175 could be done - it was one of their arguments trying to persuade TfW to keep the 175s.

It might be possible, but the work involved seems unnecessary when they could be redeployed in the North East to replace Sprinters and without any modifications required. It would be less work converting 168s because a unit has already been done, whereas it'd be starting from scratch for 175s and the Cummins engine.
The 168s are well established and liked on the Chiltern line so seems a pointless exercise getting rid just to bring in rolling stock of a similar age; whether it's 168s or 175s they will need a long programme of hybrid conversion for all the units which work on the Chiltern mainline.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

It might be possible, but the work involved seems unnecessary when they could be redeployed in the North East to replace Sprinters and without any modifications required. It would be less work converting 168s because a unit has already been done, whereas it'd be starting from scratch for 175s and the Cummins engine.
The 168s are well established and liked on the Chiltern line so seems a pointless exercise getting rid just to bring in rolling stock of a similar age; whether it's 168s or 175s they will need a long programme of hybrid conversion for all the units which work on the Chiltern mainline.

I can’t see the 175s ending up anywhere other than Chiltern or Northern.

 

[Philip]

I can’t see the 175s ending up anywhere other than Chiltern or Northern.

Or perhaps more likely both, if Chiltern release the loco stock.

 

[mmh]

Also the 197s will inevitably have some teething problems

Will? Do. I'm told they still haven't been west of Llandudno Junction or anywhere in South Wales. That's quite some teething problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will? Do. I'm told they still haven't been west of Llandudno Junction or anywhere in South Wales. That's quite some teething problem.

Given that they're basically gangwayed 195s, and 195s are now operating reliably, why is this all so difficult?

 

[Anonymous10]

Given that they're basically gangwayed 195s, and 195s are now operating reliably, why is this all so difficult?

driver training and route clearance, as has been said many times in the 197 thread. their introduction was always planned to start with north wales so logically thats where training has started. also worth remembering they haven't passed fault free milage yet

 

[craigybagel]

Will? Do. I'm told they still haven't been west of Llandudno Junction or anywhere in South Wales. That's quite some teething problem.

Given that they're basically gangwayed 195s, and 195s are now operating reliably, why is this all so difficult?

Nothing to do with teething issues. There are gauging issues that mean they can't run West of Llandudno Junction until work is done to the line itself.

As for South Wales, there hasn't been a reason to send one there yet. There are several instructors from Cardiff and Carmarthen involved in the training in the North, so when the time comes it shouldn't be too hard to start training down there, but the priority at the moment is training the North depots. The South depots are busy enough getting ready for the introduction of the Stadlers and training up crews on 67s.

 

[mmh]

Nothing to do with teething issues. There are gauging issues that mean they can't run West of Llandudno Junction until work is done to the line itself.

How is buying a train that can't go where it needs to, and needs changes to either it or infrastructure not a teething issue?

"Hi, I want some some new trains. Here is the collosal list of every other one that's been down the lines we need it to work on. Here are their dimensions. Can you please build us one that fits?"

Is there anywhere else in the world that does this nonsense we do?