Class 175 future speculation

[JonathanH]

If passenger numbers do not recover the 175s might allow Scotrail to escape the HST albatros around their necks.

Not quite enough capacity though - whilst there are 27 units, there are only 70 vehicles which is probably not going to be enough, even with lower passenger numbers.

27 222s are a far better fit to replace the 26 Scotrail HSTs (originally 27), having broadly the same number of vehicles, and 175s are a better fit to take out the GWR HSTs, paired up on some workings. (To complete HST replacement which must be high up on the list of priorities for the railway now, the Avanti 221s can displace the XC ones.)

 

[Philip]

Just because HSTs are old doesn't mean GWR will be looking to replace them. They are hardly in a decrepit state.

 

[peteb]

I wonder why TFW doesn't keep them for Aberystwyth and Pwehelli to Birmingham International services? Or are other new trains for those lines on order?

 

[wobman]

I wonder why TFW doesn't keep them for Aberystwyth and Pwehelli to Birmingham International services? Or are other new trains for those lines on order?

Yes there will be 21 2 car ertms equipped 197's based out of Mach, for the Cambrian line

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I wonder why TFW doesn't keep them for Aberystwyth and Pwehelli to Birmingham International services? Or are other new trains for those lines on order?

They can’t run on those routes

 

[Caaardiff]

I wonder why TFW doesn't keep them for Aberystwyth and Pwehelli to Birmingham International services? Or are other new trains for those lines on order?

They don't have ERTMs fitted and part of the 197 order includes ERTMs fitted to replace the 158s.
Also cambrian units are much better having gangways due to the split workings.

 

[43096]

Just because HSTs are old doesn't mean GWR will be looking to replace them. They are hardly in a decrepit state.

But they are very expensive to run as 4-car sets on the duties they now do.

 

[Rhydgaled]

one minor issue with your depot proposal who would maintain the 153s for HOWL and whatever they plan on operating to pembroke dock i believe this to be 197 and same for Fishguard

Ideally I'd have the HOWL worked by the 2-car 175s but it doesn't look like there would be enough 175s left so I guess I should have added 153s to Landore's allocation (and possibly some ex-EMR 156s/158s if any are going free). As for 197s, TfW ordered far too many (really, they shouldn't have ordered any at all but we're stuck with at least some of them now) and there should only be a few (30 max) built and all based at Chester for north Wales coast stopping services (and, I guess, Wrexham to Cardiff stoppers given the 170s I would have suggested for that route, due to not enough 175s existing, are now lost to Wales).

I wonder why TFW doesn't keep them for Aberystwyth and Pwehelli to Birmingham International services? Or are other new trains for those lines on order?

As Caaardiff posted above, the Cambrian really needs Unit End Gangways - new 197s are on-order but are otherwise much less suitable for the Cambrian than the current 158s so I'd keep the 158s.

 

[Anonymous10]

Ideally I'd have the HOWL worked by the 2-car 175s but it doesn't look like there would be enough 175s left so I guess I should have added 153s to Landore's allocation (and possibly some ex-EMR 156s/158s if any are going free). As for 197s, TfW ordered far too many (really, they shouldn't have ordered any at all but we're stuck with at least some of them now) and there should only be a few (30 max) built and all based at Chester for north Wales coast stopping services (and, I guess, Wrexham to Cardiff stoppers given the 170s I would have suggested for that route, due to not enough 175s existing, are now lost to Wales).

As Caaardiff posted above, the Cambrian really needs Unit End Gangways - new 197s are on-order but are otherwise much less suitable for the Cambrian than the current 158s so I'd keep the 158s.

170s are leaving but this is now off topic suffice to say we both want 175s to stay on long distance services alongside the mk4 sets

 

[Philip]

170s are leaving but this is now off topic suffice to say we both want 175s to stay on long distance services alongside the mk4 sets

But that isn't going to happen. I think it's pretty nailed on that Manchester-South Wales will be a mix of mk4 sets and 197s; class 175s will be going elsewhere.

 

[Anonymous10]

But that isn't going to happen. I think it's pretty nailed on that Manchester-South Wales will be a mix of mk4 sets and 197s; class 175s will be going elsewhere.

we can dream cant we it hasnt been publicly announced and the 197s are already being planned for deployment on other routes do

 

[wobman]

we can dream cant we it hasnt been publicly announced and the 197s are already being planned for deployment on other routes do

The MK4s are a big investment by TFW and their flagship services on the 2 routes they are to be used on, the 197's will fill in the gaps in the routes.

The 175's unfortunately are going to leave before the sprinters, I wish it wasn't that way but I think TFW have budgeted for that.

The 77 197's units are going to be TFWs core traction on routes outside S Wales, all that's going to be seen in N Wales are 197's and MK4s except the 230's and the odd 153's on the heart of Wales.

 

[Caaardiff]

we can dream cant we it hasnt been publicly announced and the 197s are already being planned for deployment on other routes do

It won't be happening, the 197's will be working the Milford - Manchester route alongside Mk4's to Swansea.
IF, and it's a very big IF, the 175's stay there would have to be a lot of work put in that wasn't accounted for in the Franchise workings. The biggest issue will be maintenance. IF Landore becomes a depot then I can't see it being a major maintenance hub, if anything only for the MK4's and basic overnight maintenance and servicing for anything in West Wales. The shed at Landore isn't very big.

There does need to be a fleet plan for the Swansea metro and new Cardiff City metro (not the current plenty Cardiff & Valleys metro). But that is a long way off. There's been many suggestions on those but I don't think anything is even set in concrete yet, but which time the 175's will be even older.

The only feasible option IF the 175's were to stay is for the heavy maintenance to transfer to Canton, especially now the Pullman deal has gone through, it does increase possible capacity. That means Canton will need to maintain the Flirts (All 45 of them - or 133 carriages), as well as any 150's or 153's kept for HOWL and however many 175's. It could be achievable, but then next question is where could the 175's be used?

Potentially on West Wales routes, Cardiff/Swansea - Pembroke Dock & Fishguard. Swanline services that terminate at Swansea. HOWL.... maybe? Crewe-Shrewsbury locals. Or new routes such as the mooted Swansea - Bristol services.

And the question after that is once all the new fleet is delivered, will the 175's actually be needed or be surplus to requirements? The current routes along with South Wales - Liverpool must all be accounted for within the current fleet order, with the exception of Swansea - Bristol which is still just a rumour.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And the question after that is once all the new fleet is delivered, will the 175's actually be needed or be surplus to requirements? The current routes along with South Wales - Liverpool must all be accounted for within the current fleet order

With the exception of the 170s leaving then yes, everything in KeolisAmey's plans will have been accounted for; I don't know whether the number of mark 4 sets and 153s incoming is equal to the number of 170s leaving or not. But, in the main, there is far more stock than would be needed to cover current service commitments so alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements. My argument is that it is the class 197s that are surplus to requirements rather than the 158s and 175s, and that the vast majority of the 197s should be cancelled (or reconfigured with electric traction as units for new, as yet uncommitted, metro services).

 

[wobman]

With the exception of the 170s leaving then yes, everything in KeolisAmey's plans will have been accounted for; I don't know whether the number of mark 4 sets and 153s incoming is equal to the number of 170s leaving or not. But, in the main, there is far more stock than would be needed to cover current service commitments so alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements. My argument is that it is the class 197s that are surplus to requirements rather than the 158s and 175s, and that the vast majority of the 197s should be cancelled (or reconfigured with electric traction as units for new, as yet uncommitted, metro services).

The problem being is that 158's are old in fact over 35 years old, with numerous age related problems.
Even the 175's are over 20 years old, both have the issue of non comparability for multiple working.

The TFW plan is a universal fleet of units that can be maintained easily and can be compatible for multiple working. They 197's suit that plan and have the advantages that go with new modern traction

 

[507020]

With the exception of the 170s leaving then yes, everything in KeolisAmey's plans will have been accounted for; I don't know whether the number of mark 4 sets and 153s incoming is equal to the number of 170s leaving or not. But, in the main, there is far more stock than would be needed to cover current service commitments so alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements. My argument is that it is the class 197s that are surplus to requirements rather than the 158s and 175s, and that the vast majority of the 197s should be cancelled (or reconfigured with electric traction as units for new, as yet uncommitted, metro services).

This is interesting but why do they not reform some 158s as 3 cars and use 175s to replace 153s and some of the worst 150s? 195s, 196s and 197s will be Diesel’s last stand.

 

[Philip]

With the exception of the 170s leaving then yes, everything in KeolisAmey's plans will have been accounted for; I don't know whether the number of mark 4 sets and 153s incoming is equal to the number of 170s leaving or not. But, in the main, there is far more stock than would be needed to cover current service commitments so alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements. My argument is that it is the class 197s that are surplus to requirements rather than the 158s and 175s, and that the vast majority of the 197s should be cancelled (or reconfigured with electric traction as units for new, as yet uncommitted, metro services).

How can you say that when neither you or any passenger has experienced travelling in a 197 yet?

Class 197s will be quicker off the mark than 175s, potentially providing journey time improvements.

 

[Caaardiff]

With the exception of the 170s leaving then yes, everything in KeolisAmey's plans will have been accounted for; I don't know whether the number of mark 4 sets and 153s incoming is equal to the number of 170s leaving or not. But, in the main, there is far more stock than would be needed to cover current service commitments so alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements. My argument is that it is the class 197s that are surplus to requirements rather than the 158s and 175s, and that the vast majority of the 197s should be cancelled (or reconfigured with electric traction as units for new, as yet uncommitted, metro services).

Do you know that for a fact? Because based on the current fleet, the service is slimmed down in many places.
The Marches diagrams will be doubled up because of the split in Swansea, there will also be the return of Manchester-Llandudno in some form, which may change to llandudno-Liverpool as well as Cardiff to Liverpool and some frequency increases across the network.
So without knowing the diagram requirements, which I'm sure TfW have already calculated, none of us know the exact number of units required.

Also a big order of brand new 197s is coming, whether you like it or not. 158s or 175s will not be retained so some of those 197s can be cancelled. You need to accept that.

 

[Wolfie]

Do you know that for a fact? Because based on the current fleet, the service is slimmed down in many places.
The Marches diagrams will be doubled up because of the split in Swansea, there will also be the return of Manchester-Llandudno in some form, which may change to llandudno-Liverpool as well as Cardiff to Liverpool and some frequency increases across the network.
So without knowing the diagram requirements, which I'm sure TfW have already calculated, none of us know the exact number of units required.

Also a big order of brand new 197s is coming, whether you like it or not. 158s or 175s will not be retained so some of those 197s can be cancelled. You need to accept that.

Re your last para repeatedly posting that you don't like that will change nothing either

 

[wobman]

Going back to the 175's future, I wonder what TOC would have a similar livery to the TFW colour scheme ?
Who ever inherits them after the TFW time extension, will have a good fleet of trains.

 

[Neptune]

Going back to the 175's future, I wonder what TOC would have a similar livery to the TFW colour scheme ?
Who ever inherits them after the TFW time extension, will have a good fleet of trains.

I suspect once the 175’s are off lease and should they be lucky and get taken on by a GBR concession in England then they’ll end up in GBR livery.

Units aren’t transferred around due to their livery.

 

[wobman]

I suspect once the 175’s are off lease and should they be lucky and get taken on by a GBR concession in England then they’ll end up in GBR livery.

Units aren’t transferred around due to their livery.

I know that units don't move due to what livery they have, but it saves a big expense for the TOC until this gbr colour scheme is decided looking at things practically.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The problem being is that 158's are old in fact over 35 years old, with numerous age related problems.
Even the 175's are over 20 years old, both have the issue of non comparability for multiple working.

According to Wikipedia the 158s were constructed from 1989 to 1992 in which case the oldest would be 32 years old rather than the youngest being over 35 as you seem to imply. Given that 150s are older than that with no plans to replace them (other than the TfW ones) I don't see any urgency to scrap the 158s - an appropriate new fleet for the Cambrian to allow a cascade of 158s to Northern and/or GWR to allow them to withdraw lesser sprinters would have been desirable but KeolisAmey blew it by ordering a fleet that was not fit for the 21st century (the 197s) meaning it's a choice of 158s staying on the Cambrian or a disaster in the form of 77 class 197s.

The lack of multiple working capability is rendered somewhat irrelevant by the fact that the Cambrian needs ETCS so a subfleet needs to be kept to that area regardless.

How can you say that when neither you or any passenger has experienced travelling in a 197 yet?

You only have to look at the build dates, the decarbonisation targets and Porterbrook's written evidence to the UK Parliament Committee's 'Trains fit for the future' inquiry. The latter gives the lifespan of a train as roughly 35 years and makes clear that scrapping a 'half-life' fleet wastes carbon. That gives you the following:

• 2024 - first class 158 eligible for scrap
• 2027 - last class 158 eligible for scrap
• 2034 - first class 175 eligible for scrap
• 2036 - last class 175 eligible for scrap
• 2040 - UK Government target for removal of diesel-only trains
• 2050 - net zero carbon deadline
• 2052 - first class 195 eligible for scrap
• 2055 - last class 195 eligible for scrap
• 2055 - first class 197 eligible for scrap
• 2059 - last class 197 eligible for scrap

I think that's pretty clear - the class 158s and class 175s are eligible for scrap within the timeframe available for decarbonisation. The Civity DMUs are not, and will therefore be 'surplus to requirements'.

Do you know that for a fact? Because based on the current fleet, the service is slimmed down in many places.

Do I know what for a fact? That alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements? If so, I guess it depends how you define 'surplus to requirements' and 'know for a fact'. I don't know how many diagrams there will be on the TfW network but I have done a rough estimate of how many additional units would be required to run the few new services proposed outside the metro. It seems quite obvious to me that 128 DMUs (24 cl158s, 27 cl175s and 77 cl197s), plus an unknown number of mark 4 sets, is going to be a far bigger fleet than required given that not all that much in the way of new services has been promised and the current service is run using just 51 DMUs (plus 3 mark 4 sets and the odd rouge 150).

Also a big order of brand new 197s is coming, whether you like it or not. 158s or 175s will not be retained so some of those 197s can be cancelled. You need to accept that.

Yes, a big order is coming at the moment but that needs to change. People need to stop accepting the unacceptable and start making a fuss. The 195s already screw up our decarbonisation targets, every 197 built is just making that problem bigger and wasting more and more of our limited carbon budget. We are headed for the cliff edge at high speed, somebody needs to apply the brakes.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Please explain how the 197s are "not fit for the 21st century", without defaulting to door positions or seat types as both of those factors are subjective and irrelevant. The only reason I can think of is the diesel engines, but unless you've invented a way to rapidly electrify railways that's unavoidable.

 

[wobman]

I thought this post was about 175 speculation, not another anti 197 post again.....

The 175's received a lot of hate in the early years, but have turned into good units once the problems were resolved.

I think it was a real Shame ATW never got the 180 units though, that was the original plan with FNW.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Please explain how the 197s are "not fit for the 21st century", without defaulting to door positions or seat types as both of those factors are subjective and irrelevant. The only reason I can think of is the diesel engines, but unless you've invented a way to rapidly electrify railways that's unavoidable.

It's the diesel engines, or more-specifically the mechanical transmission and lack of passive provision for addition of an electric mode - see the dates in my previous post (just above yours). I agree that diesel engines are unavoidable in the short term, however in the lifetime of these units we will need everything to be capable of making use of the electrified sections that exist to minimise consumption of diesel/battery-life/hydrogen. The post-2040 rolling stock fleet needs to be electrification-ready, and anything built now will be part of the post-2040 rolling stock fleet.

The door positions and seat types meerly make them unsuitable for long-distance services, if they were electric they would still have a place in the 21st century but that place would not be long-distance services.

 

[Caaardiff]

Do I know what for a fact? That alot of units are going to be surplus to requirements? If so, I guess it depends how you define 'surplus to requirements' and 'know for a fact'. I don't know how many diagrams there will be on the TfW network but I have done a rough estimate of how many additional units would be required to run the few new services proposed outside the metro. It seems quite obvious to me that 128 DMUs (24 cl158s, 27 cl175s and 77 cl197s), plus an unknown number of mark 4 sets, is going to be a far bigger fleet than required given that not all that much in the way of new services has been promised and the current service is run using just 51 DMUs (plus 3 mark 4 sets and the odd rouge 150).


Yes, a big order is coming at the moment but that needs to change. People need to stop accepting the unacceptable and start making a fuss. The 195s already screw up our decarbonisation targets, every 197 built is just making that problem bigger and wasting more and more of our limited carbon budget. We are headed for the cliff edge at high speed, somebody needs to apply the brakes.

But it's not 128 DMU's, because the 197s currently are replacing 158's and 175's. Although there's a huge amount of speculation, the original Franchise brief was the 175's to go by Q2/3 2022 and 158's to go by Q1/2 2023 on the assumption that the ERTM's fitted units will be last to arrive.
In that comparison there are currently the below mainline units:

Assumed only 4 150's of the current fleet used on mainline
4x 150's
22x 153's
24x 158s
11x 170s
27x 175's

So approx 88 units and around 178 carriages

The planned new fleet for mainline consists of:
9x 153's
5x 230's
77x 197s
11x Flirts
7x MK4's

Total - 109 units and around 276 carriages.

So a huge increase in carriage capacity, but only an increase in 21 units. Bearing in mind that the current timetable is still reduced due to the fleet shortage.
I get your point about decarbonisation, but when exactly are you expecting the Welsh network to be electrified? Not any time soon.
Also if TfW get these metros and timetable increases right, it should attract car users to the railway, so there's already an influence in reducing emissions.

 

[wobman]

But it's not 128 DMU's, because the 197s currently are replacing 158's and 175's. Although there's a huge amount of speculation, the original Franchise brief was the 175's to go by Q2/3 2022 and 158's to go by Q1/2 2023 on the assumption that the ERTM's fitted units will be last to arrive.
In that comparison there are currently the below mainline units:

Assumed only 4 150's of the current fleet used on mainline
4x 150's
22x 153's
24x 158s
11x 170s
27x 175's

So approx 88 units and around 178 carriages

The planned new fleet for mainline consists of:
9x 153's
5x 230's
77x 197s
11x Flirts
7x MK4's

Total - 109 units and around 276 carriages.

So a huge increase in carriage capacity, but only an increase in 21 units. Bearing in mind that the current timetable is still reduced due to the fleet shortage.
I get your point about decarbonisation, but when exactly are you expecting the Welsh network to be electrified? Not any time soon.
Also if TfW get these metros and timetable increases right, it should attract car users to the railway, so there's already an influence in reducing emissions.

Im glad TFW are increasing the capacity with the new units gained, this summer has shown the huge issues on the Wales and borders network regarding the lack of capacity.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's the diesel engines, or more-specifically the mechanical transmission and lack of passive provision for addition of an electric mode - see the dates in my previous post (just above yours). I agree that diesel engines are unavoidable in the short term, however in the lifetime of these units we will need everything to be capable of making use of the electrified sections that exist to minimise consumption of diesel/battery-life/hydrogen. The post-2040 rolling stock fleet needs to be electrification-ready, and anything built now will be part of the post-2040 rolling stock fleet.

The door positions and seat types meerly make them unsuitable for long-distance services, if they were electric they would still have a place in the 21st century but that place would not be long-distance services.

There are certain routes that are unlikely to ever be wired, so some form of self-propelled train will be needed. Batteries and Bionic Duckweed might work fine for Stourbridge or Butetown but are unlikely to ever be capable of having enough range for the Heart of Wales or Glasgow to Mallaig. 150s won't last forever so these latest orders of diesel units will likely be the only options for those routes. Yes, we need to reduce carbon emissions, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The CAF DMUs are considerably more fuel-efficient than the 1980s units, as well as being quicker off the mark. There is a case to argue that diesel-electric units would have been better, but the theoretical possibility of converting to bi-mode would almost certainly never happen once the units have a few years under their belt- see the E-Voyager project for example. Diesel electric transmission would also make the units heavier, negating some of the advantages they have over the legacy units.

Where the doors are is completely irrelevant to the sort of service the units will run on. 185s for example are perfectly fine for even the long-distance coast-to-coast services they often run on. Likewise the passenger environment on 170s is very pleasant- the old MML/Hull Trains "intercity-lite" interiors in particular were far nicer than the tired Mk3s they ran alongside. With our railway being a system which requires different service types to be combined for capacity reasons, a compromise is necessary. This blind prejudice over door positions does you no favours. Modern seats I'll grant you have been a bit of a PR own-goal.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But it's not 128 DMU's, because the 197s currently are replacing 158's and 175's. Although there's a huge amount of speculation, the original Franchise brief was the 175's to go by Q2/3 2022 and 158's to go by Q1/2 2023 on the assumption that the ERTM's fitted units will be last to arrive.

I seem to recall the last of the units being due for delivery in 2024, at which point several of the 3-car units would be converted to provide first class accomodation (which prior to that point would be declassified). That means the ETCS fitted units, while not the first to arrive, wouldn't be the last either.

I get your point about decarbonisation, but when exactly are you expecting the Welsh network to be electrified? Not any time soon.

There is what I'm 'expecting', what I would want to see and what I think might be 'realisticly acheiveable'. With the current UK Government what I'm expecting is disaster - very little additional electrification and a failure to decarbonise by 2050. What I would want to see is, broadly speaking, full implementation of Network Rail's TDNS proposals in time for the government's 'no more diesel-only trains' target in 2040, but that's unacheiveable. What might be 'realistically acheiveable' is implementation of something approaching the TDNS plan (perhaps minus some of the ancillary electrification) by 2050. In terms of the TfW network, that might look like this in terms of future mainline electrification:

• Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury by 2030 or 2035 (which is when I would envisage class 158 replacement)
• Crewe to Newport and Cardiff to Swansea by 2040
• Holyhead/Llandudno to Runcorn, Warrington Bank Quay and Crewe by 2045
• Shrewsbury to Chester via Wrexham, Briton Ferry to Llanelli and Swansea to Carmarthen by 2050

Also if TfW get these metros and timetable increases right, it should attract car users to the railway, so there's already an influence in reducing emissions.

The metros should attract car users, but the deployment of class 197s on routes (ie. long-distance (semi-)fast services) they aren't suitable for will not exactly encourage car users to flock to the railway. Being diesel-only as cars switch to electric won't help encourage modal shift either.

There are certain routes that are unlikely to ever be wired, so some form of self-propelled train will be needed. Batteries and Bionic Duckweed might work fine for Stourbridge or Butetown but are unlikely to ever be capable of having enough range for the Heart of Wales or Glasgow to Mallaig.

The TDNS has the Heart Of Wales and Cambrian lines down as routes for hydrogen, but between Craven Arms and Shrewsbury, Llanelli and Swansea and Shrewsbury and Birmingham International these would be running under the wires. The Heart Of Wales might not be much of a concern if it stays at 4/5 trains per day, but running the Cambrian services as diesel (or hydrogen) under the wires east of Shrewsbury would be an extremely poor outcome. You need a self-powered fleet capable of making use of electrification to make a strong case for the bits that are wired.

There are a few routes in the TDNS (such as the Cornish branches) where there is no OHLE on route at all but there are more than enough 195s to cover all of those. We don't need the 197s as well.

The CAF DMUs are considerably more fuel-efficient than the 1980s units

I'm not so sure; they are heavier than sprinters and the figures I've found suggest there isn't much in it. The CAF DMUs are more fuel-efficient than 175s though.

There is a case to argue that diesel-electric units would have been better, but the theoretical possibility of converting to bi-mode would almost certainly never happen once the units have a few years under their belt- see the E-Voyager project for example.

This is why I say they should be 'electrification ready', not just that they should be diesel-electric. Voyagers have traction motors, but apparently their lack of through-wiring between vehicles for traction power contributed to the E-Voyager project faultering. Any new self-powered units should have stuff like that in place from new with designs ready for the convertion to bi-mode so that, when the time comes, it's as easy as fitting a pantograph and maybe a transformer; just as 3rd rail EMUs are designed for easy OHLE convertion. The fact that the Voyagers proved 'too hard' to convert just shows that the Civity DMUs are going to lock us into diesel for far too long - we need to stop building them ASAP.

Where the doors are is completely irrelevant to the sort of service the units will run on.

Where the doors are is almost completely irrelevant, but the width of them is very relevant (and the reduction in toilets, seats, tables and legroom in favour of standing room that results).