Future of SWR's class 158/159 fleet

[Towers]

I find it amazing that when NSE were looking at the renewal of stock for the WoE line, it was considering electrifying the route then to just Salisbury or the whole way to Exeter, with 3rd rail to Salisbury then overhead to Exeter, but the history goes that the regional 158's became available, so they took them. But I believe it was a very close call and it was nearly electrified then. I know this is slightly of topic but if SWR can scrap the 442's because of their age, well how can a class that is now 30y/o, and diesel powered be expected to go on even longer. Salisbury depot are struggling with availability now, so how will they cope in three to five years time or even longer.

The 442s were dispensed with because they weren’t deemed to be needed any longer, they were also causing ongoing issues with signalling during their testing. There really is very little comparison with the 158/159 fleet. The age of SWR’s diesel fleet is of course significant, but they’re far from the only TOC managing to keep second generation DMUs in frontline service. The 158/159s remain very decent trains, and under South West Trains the Salisbury fleet were well cared for and often considered the best maintained examples on the network. Different TOCs and different approaches will produce different results. 30 years old doesn’t automatically mean they’re knackered; we’ve only just lost nearly 50 year old HSTs from frontline intercity work! They’ll solider on for a while yet, and I dare say they’re likely to find further homes elsewhere when replacement does happen, unless we see a huge DfT sponsored order to eradicate hundreds of BR-era DMUs nationally.

 

[Snow1964]

Salisbury depot are struggling with availability now, so how will they cope in three to five years time or even longer.

Salisbury has always done a good job, the problem is obsolete spare parts. The 159s are now 31 years old (nearer 33-34 years old for those converted from 158s).

It doesn't really matter what condition they are in (and most would agree they are good) if cannot easily get routine replacement parts, and of course they are at point where lot of parts with 15-20 year lifespans are becoming worn out again (were refurbished around 2008).

Although Waterloo-Salisbury trains could be operated by a battery EMU, that's not possible for the trains to Yeovil and Exeter. I am still of the opinion that they should be looking at a regional bimode 5 or 6 cars long, seating suitable for 3+ hours, doors that can cope with passenger churn. Very similar to what GWR needs for Cardiff-Penzance.

Ideally the trains should be fully compatible with EMUs with batteries so they can couple at Salisbury. But sadly, the DfT (and Treasury) don't really have any capital expenditure strategy to replace worn out assets over next few years.

 

[JonathanH]

But I believe it was a very close call and it was nearly electrified then.

There is very little chance that it could have been electrified all the way to Exeter back in the early 1990s. NSE had to withdraw the locomotive hauled trains urgently because they were unreliable and expensive to operate. Indeed, an emergency timetable had needed to be put in place with Reading to Salisbury trains using DEMUs on some services instead of hauled trains running to London.

There would not have been time to institute an electrification programme and the service between Salisbury and Exeter was sparse. It also has to be remembered that the economy was in recession.

The 159s were available and solved NSE's problem.

The money and time for anything else just didn't exist.

I know this is slightly of topic but if SWR can scrap the 442's because of their age

The 442s contained traction motors dating back to the 1960s. The retraction exercise was abandoned because the 458s were available.

 

[RobShipway]

Salisbury has always done a good job, the problem is obsolete spare parts. The 159s are now 31 years old (nearer 33-34 years old for those converted from 158s).

It doesn't really matter what condition they are in (and most would agree they are good) if cannot easily get routine replacement parts, and of course they are at point where lot of parts with 15-20 year lifespans are becoming worn out again (were refurbished around 2008).

Although Waterloo-Salisbury trains could be operated by a battery EMU, that's not possible for the trains to Yeovil and Exeter. I am still of the opinion that they should be looking at a regional bimode 5 or 6 cars long, seating suitable for 3+ hours, doors that can cope with passenger churn. Very similar to what GWR needs for Cardiff-Penzance.

Ideally the trains should be fully compatible with EMUs with batteries so they can couple at Salisbury. But sadly, the DfT (and Treasury) don't really have any capital expenditure strategy to replace worn out assets over next few years.

Whilst I agree with your comment, I do think that a Tri-mode train is actually what should be being looked into. I would argue that both a 3 and 6 carriage versions with doors at either end aka similar to class 730 in tri-mode form of either Alstom Aventra or Hitachi AT200.

The trains should be able to work third rail to Basingstoke, then on battery to Salisbury and on diesel power with also the ability to be recharging the battery between Salisbury and Exeter.

 

[43096]

There is very little chance that it could have been electrified all the way to Exeter back in the early 1990s. NSE had to withdraw the locomotive hauled trains urgently because they were unreliable and expensive to operate. Indeed, an emergency timetable had needed to be put in place with Reading to Salisbury trains using DEMUs on some services instead of hauled trains running to London.

There would not have been time to institute an electrification programme and the service between Salisbury and Exeter was sparse. It also has to be remembered that the economy was in recession.

The 159s were available and solved NSE's problem.

The money and time for anything else just didn't exist.

It should be noted that the 159s are older now than the unreliable Duffs and Vacs were when the 159s came in. Given how 159 reliability had held up, it says much about the design and how Salisbury has maintained them. They remain the best type of train for the route.

The 442s contained traction motors dating back to the 1960s. The retraction exercise was abandoned because the 458s were available.

The 458s were available regardless once the 701s were included in WorstGroup's franchise.

There were other factors behind the 442s going. They had a time-limited derogation for full PRM compliance (around the external doors, IIRC) which made the case for binning them stronger.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Salisbury depot are struggling with availability now, so how will they cope in three to five years time or even longer.

Can you substantiate that? I’ve randomly pulled availability emails and they are all met.

 

[Mills444]

I find it amazing that when NSE were looking at the renewal of stock for the WoE line, it was considering electrifying the route then to just Salisbury or the whole way to Exeter, with 3rd rail to Salisbury then overhead to Exeter, but the history goes that the regional 158's became available, so they took them. But I believe it was a very close call and it was nearly electrified then.

Why did NSE consider two types of electrification? Why not just 3rd rail all the way to Exeter?

 

[zwk500]

Why did NSE consider two types of electrification? Why not just 3rd rail all the way to Exeter?

Because the advantages of 3rd rail are totally not suited to the west of England line, and it would have been presumed thar eventually if Exeter was electrified from the GW it would be OLE, so having OLE from Yeovil would also help diversionary runs.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Until the money ran out for BR in 1990, NSE were committed to their proposed cl.171 fleet for this line, not electrification. The 159 fleet came about because of those financial restraints across all 3 BR passenger sectors.

The 165 and 166 fleet also became less than anticipated.

 

[Mills444]

Because the advantages of 3rd rail are totally not suited to the west of England line, and it would have been presumed thar eventually if Exeter was electrified from the GW it would be OLE, so having OLE from Yeovil would also help diversionary runs.

Fair enough I assume they would have ordered Bi modal units then?

 

[zwk500]

Fair enough I assume they would have ordered Bi modal units then?

Presumably if they were electrifying with a different system they would have ordered dual-voltage units.

 

[Meerkat]

Anyone suggesting 159 replacements don’t need gangways cant have actually used them out of Waterloo!
You get a fair way down the line before people have stopped moving down the train. If there were no gangways the last unit would be hugely overcrowded.
Extend 3rd rail to Oakley for a changeover to AC, and electrify to Salisbury as part of AC electrification to Southampton via Romsey. AC electrify Exeter St David’s and then spread out, firstly toward Honiton.
Buy new gangwayed, end door, 159 replacements - dual voltage with diesel rafts that can be swapped for batteries in line with electrification closing the gap.

 

[Towers]

Anyone suggesting 159 replacements don’t need gangways cant have actually used them out of Waterloo!
You get a fair way down the line before people have stopped moving down the train. If there were no gangways the last unit would be hugely overcrowded.
Extend 3rd rail to Oakley for a changeover to AC, and electrify to Salisbury as part of AC electrification to Southampton via Romsey. AC electrify Exeter St David’s and then spread out, firstly toward Honiton.
Buy new gangwayed, end door, 159 replacements - dual voltage with diesel rafts that can be swapped for batteries in line with electrification closing the gap.

Or just put the bloody juice rail through and then you can use the existing DC fleet on the Salisbury - Romsey rounders, like any industry with any common sense might do!

Completely agree about gangways, we shouldn’t be planning to run in multiple without them any more, although of course we still do

 

[43096]

Completely agree about gangways, we shouldn’t be planning to run in multiple without them any more, although of course we still do

Disagree. It’s debatable if the extra cost and design compromises (drivers position for one) is worth it. In my experience, not many passengers use them, as evidenced by the number of times I’ve walked through from the rear to the front where the rear is wedged and the front is empty, even after announcements.

 

[slicedbread]

Buy new gangwayed, end door, 159 replacements

The ASLEF Cab Ergnomics doc says

SECTION 2: CAB FEATURES
GENERAL
1. ASLEF no longer accepts the introduction of “through” corridor rolling stock for the following
reasons:
a. The cab design restricts the ability to apply good ergonomic principles.
b. The cab design is incompatible with the required installation of the many modern pieces of
equipment and controls.
c. There is technology available that can provide a modern solution to questions that were
once only solved by through corridor rolling stock

So there maybe an argument about that

 

[JonathanH]

What does this mean?

c. There is technology available that can provide a modern solution to questions that were
once only solved by through corridor rolling stock

We haven't developed teleportation between parts of a train yet.

Maybe selective door operation, but that still doesn't solve the issue of people boarding the wrong part of a train, or revenue staff needing access to the whole train.

 

[Energy]

The ASLEF Cab Ergnomics doc says



So there maybe an argument about that

And yet ASLEF hasn't objected to the 196s, 197s and 730s?

 

[Mikey C]

And yet ASLEF hasn't objected to the 196s, 197s and 730s?

Whereas the non gangwayed 701s have had all sorts of cab related problems...

 

[D365]

c. There is technology available that can provide a modern solution to questions that were once only solved by through corridor rolling stock

What does this mean?

We haven't developed teleportation between parts of a train yet.

Maybe selective door operation, but that still doesn't solve the issue of people boarding the wrong part of a train, or revenue staff needing access to the whole train.

Indeed - what kind of Human Factors engineers are ASLEF employing?!

 

[HOOVER29]

A bi-mode replacement seems most likely and sensible. Really shouldn't be running diesel into central London if possible.

In terms of the old 159 trains, they will be snapped up by pretty much any operator. Remember 150,156 are still in regular use and 158/9 are a pretty significant upgrade in terms of comfort.

I have a feeling 15X will be around for some time to come, especially with the air of austerity around...

Ok to run diesel into central Birmingham,Manchester, Liverpool or any other major city but not London?

 

[Meerkat]

Ok to run diesel into central Birmingham,Manchester, Liverpool or any other major city but not London?

Unscientifically I would suggest that London is bigger so the diesels run through more urban area than they do to get into other cities.
Also the trains are longer, with more diesel GUs.

 

[Towers]

Disagree. It’s debatable if the extra cost and design compromises (drivers position for one) is worth it. In my experience, not many passengers use them, as evidenced by the number of times I’ve walked through from the rear to the front where the rear is wedged and the front is empty, even after announcements.

Well I respectfully disagree back; for the staff working amongst the cargo not having them is a pain in the proverbials!

However, I strongly suspect that they’ll gradually become a thing of the past as the years go by, no doubt with the approval of both purchaser and manufacturer!

 

[43096]

Well I respectfully disagree back; for the staff working amongst the cargo not having them is a pain in the proverbials!

Cargo? Is that a typo?

 

[Jozhua]

Ok to run diesel into central Birmingham,Manchester, Liverpool or any other major city but not London?

London is significantly bigger than the others, but yes, I would like to see diesel operations scaled back significantly in Birmingham and Manchester too - starting with XC.

 

[JamesT]

Cargo? Is that a typo?

I suspect it’s a reference to “self loading cargo”…

 

[Towers]

I suspect it’s a reference to “self loading cargo”…

Indeed, it was mild humour; no offence meant to the valued travelling public!

 

[Trainbike46]

Ok to run diesel into central Birmingham,Manchester, Liverpool or any other major city but not London?

It's not acceptable to run diesel in any urban area long-term; however, this is a thread on a fleet that doesn't go anywhere near Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester, so it's not particularly relevant here.

In other threads, for example with regards to XC and various threads on chiltern/snow hill electrification the issue of running diesels into other urban areas is often discussed!