Future of Class 15x units

[Ted172]

Just a quick question (slightly off topic), are any pacers still staying on with GWR or TFW?

The pacers aren't staying with GWR, they'll get replaced with an internal cascade when the 769s eventually enter service. Not sure about TfW. (Sorry to stray off topic!)

 

[Journeyman]

The pacers aren't staying with GWR, they'll get replaced with an internal cascade when the 769s eventually enter service. Not sure about TfW. (Sorry to stray off topic!)

Both depend on 769s, so good luck with that!

 

[London Trains]

Simple. Scrap them and replace them with new bimode or electric stock (not 769s or D78s or whatever conversions people want). Most of the 1xx range should go (168/170/171/172 are fine and obviously I'm not including new stock).

 

[py_megapixel]

Simple. Scrap them and replace them with new bimode or electric stock (not 769s or D78s or whatever conversions people want). Most of the 1xx range should go (168/170/171/172 are fine and obviously I'm not including new stock).

The turbos and 158s probably have a decade or so left in them with a high quality refurb. But the rest have to go.

I agree with you about the conversions though. The D-train are possibly a good idea to get a quick upgrade onto branch lines, they are not suitable for busy mainline services. As for the 769s, they've been delayed and delayed and delayed, and they're barely newer than Sprinters anyway. A non-starter in my opinion.

 

[A0]

The 159s are now older than the Class 50s and a similar age to the Class 47s which they replaced on the West of England mainline.

I suspect their future is, to an extent, tied up on the decisions about electrification - if it were decided to wire Basingstoke - Exeter then a fleet of dual voltage EMUs would be the solution there. If not you're looking at a diesel / hybrid replacement - whether a bi-mode Aventra will be appearing shortly who knows? But given SWRs decision to go with Aventras to replace almost new Desiros I could see them buying into a hybrid Aventra to replace the 159s.

 

[A0]

Simple. Scrap them and replace them with new bimode or electric stock (not 769s or D78s or whatever conversions people want). Most of the 1xx range should go (168/170/171/172 are fine and obviously I'm not including new stock).

Why ? If 769s or D78s are a cost effective solution in some cases, why scrap them and build new ? New trains cost alot more and you need 30+ years to payback. For many quieter lines they make a lot of sense and may give 20 years useful service before being replaced.

 

[py_megapixel]

Why ? If 769s or D78s are a cost effective solution in some cases, why scrap them and build new ? New trains cost alot more and you need 30+ years to payback. For many quieter lines they make a lot of sense and may give 20 years useful service before being replaced.

769s are an utter farce, months or years late and barely any different to a Sprinter anyway other than the bimode capability

As for D78s, they're not suitable for short dwell times and busy mainline running.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why ? If 769s or D78s are a cost effective solution in some cases, why scrap them and build new ? New trains cost alot more and you need 30+ years to payback. For many quieter lines they make a lot of sense and may give 20 years useful service before being replaced.

The problem with the D-Train is that the bodyshell isn't that expensive in the scheme of things, so to make it affordable they have skimped on the quality of other parts of the design. They do feel quite cheap.

769s are an utter farce, months or years late and barely any different to a Sprinter anyway other than the bimode capability

As for D78s, they're not suitable for short dwell times and busy mainline running.

They'd be fine for short dwell times if the doors hadn't been artificially slowed down. They are ex LU!

 

[A0]

769s are an utter farce, months or years late and barely any different to a Sprinter anyway other than the bimode capability

As for D78s, they're not suitable for short dwell times and busy mainline running.

In the case of the 769s if a Sprinter was sufficient, then the 769 is sufficient and adds the benefit of bi-mode and greater capacity by virtue of being 4 car.

The D trains aren't designed for 'busy mainline running' - which is why they've been selected for the routes they're going on - Borderlands and MV are not high-speed lines nor are they running for prolonged periods on busy mainlines - in many respects they're no worse than Pacers or Sprinters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case for the likes of Northern the bimode capability is significant - they have rather a lot of routes that are partly under the wires, and where splitting at the end of the wires would be too inconvenient to be viable. For instance I suspect if Southport-Manchester passengers had to change at Wigan, many of them would just drive either to a suitable railhead for a direct service or all the way.

 

[py_megapixel]

In the case of the 769s if a Sprinter was sufficient, then the 769 is sufficient and adds the benefit of bi-mode and greater capacity by virtue of being 4 car.

I think you're missing the point slightly. In many of these cases a Sprinter is insufficient.

The D trains aren't designed for 'busy mainline running' - which is why they've been selected for the routes they're going on - Borderlands and MV are not high-speed lines nor are they running for prolonged periods on busy mainlines - in many respects they're no worse than Pacers or Sprinters.

No, but I'm not talking about Borderlands or MV. Much of the Sprinter fleet is on routes such as Manchester to Buxton, or services from Edinburgh or Glasgow. These are primarily branch lines but spend a not-insignificant time on the mainline to reach their terminus. And that's before you even consider that they are in fact older than the Sprinters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but I'm not talking about Borderlands or MV. Much of the Sprinter fleet is on routes such as Manchester to Buxton, or services from Edinburgh or Glasgow. These are primarily branch lines but spend a not-insignificant time on the mainline to reach their terminus. And that's before you even consider that they are in fact older than the Sprinters.

Nobody is talking about using 230s on lines like those, though. They were vaguely mooted for Northern a while ago, but it wasn't serious and went nowhere. They are being used on routes which are primarily self contained and low speed.

It's 769s that are good for the likes of Buxton due to being bi-mode.

 

[4REP]

The 159s are now older than the Class 50s and a similar age to the Class 47s which they replaced on the West of England mainline.

I suspect their future is, to an extent, tied up on the decisions about electrification - if it were decided to wire Basingstoke - Exeter then a fleet of dual voltage EMUs would be the solution there. If not you're looking at a diesel / hybrid replacement - whether a bi-mode Aventra will be appearing shortly who knows? But given SWRs decision to go with Aventras to replace almost new Desiros I could see them buying into a hybrid Aventra to replace the 159s.

It would be good to have 5 car bi mode gangwayed versions based on the 730.
You could run 10 car to Salisbury then split hence run 5 car to Exeter. You would increase capacity.

 

[JonathanH]

The 159s are now older than the Class 50s and a similar age to the Class 47s which they replaced on the West of England mainline.

Is that relevant? They are a lot more reliable.

You could run 10 car to Salisbury then split hence run 5 car to Exeter. You would increase capacity.

...and reduce it west of Salisbury. A 10-car Waterloo to Salisbury / 5-car Salisbury to Exeter plan does not reflect the all-day demand.

 

[A0]

I think you're missing the point slightly. In many of these cases a Sprinter is insufficient.

Insufficient in what way ? Not performance as they are keeping to the timetable. That's where it matters - and if a 4 car 769 can match a 2/3 car Sprinter on performance, then, infrastructure permitting, a 769 could replace a Sprinter.

No, but I'm not talking about Borderlands or MV. Much of the Sprinter fleet is on routes such as Manchester to Buxton, or services from Edinburgh or Glasgow. These are primarily branch lines but spend a not-insignificant time on the mainline to reach their terminus. And that's before you even consider that they are in fact older than the Sprinters.

And as has been pointed out - for Buxton 769s could be a pretty good solution. Match the Sprinter timings from Buxton and able to use the wires from Hazel Grove, thereby eliminating diesel under the wires into Manchester.

 

[43096]

It would be good to have 5 car bi mode gangwayed versions based on the 730.
You could run 10 car to Salisbury then split hence run 5 car to Exeter. You would increase capacity.

Except on the trains where it’s currently a 6-car beyond Salisbury, which would be a cut to capacity.

 

[A0]

Except on the trains where it’s currently a 6-car beyond Salisbury, which would be a cut to capacity.

Whether that's a problem though depends on how full they are - if a 6 car is only 50% - 75% full then it would probably make no odds. If it's full then, yes, it would cause a problem.

 

[py_megapixel]

Insufficient in what way ? Not performance as they are keeping to the timetable.

They are keeping to *a* timetable, yes. But in case you hadn't noticed, that timetable is specifically written for those units, and I don't see why we should be complacent with the timetable.

Shouldn't we be pushing for improvement, rather than just saying "it's good enough"? I can't see a 319 being much better, they're pretty sluggish as was and I can't see that improving if they're going to be hauling around a genset as well.

Also, they're noisy, uncomfortable, and even 4 cars isn't enough at peak times.

 

[A0]

They are keeping to *a* timetable, yes. But in case you hadn't noticed, that timetable is specifically written for those units, and I don't see why we should be complacent with the timetable.

Shouldn't we be pushing for improvement, rather than just saying "it's good enough"? I can't see a 319 being much better, they're pretty sluggish as was and I can't see that improving if they're going to be hauling around a genset as well.

Also, they're noisy, uncomfortable, and even 4 cars isn't enough at peak times.

Fine, so perhaps we should increase the fares on such lines so they can cover the cost of the brand new trains you demand rather than the perfectly good alternatives which are available at lower cost.

Buxton to Manchester is about 30 miles and is £ 18 return to Piccadilly at peak times, Luton is a similar distance to London and it's over £ 30 return. So increase Buxton's ticket price by 50% and that'll go towards new trains.

 

[py_megapixel]

Fine, so perhaps we should increase the fares on such lines so they can cover the cost of the brand new trains you demand rather than the perfectly good alternatives which are available at lower cost.

Buxton to Manchester is about 30 miles and is £ 18 return to Piccadilly at peak times, Luton is a similar distance to London and it's over £ 30 return. So increase Buxton's ticket price by 50% and that'll go towards new trains.

Or just invest in new rolling stock as a public good, subsidised from general taxation. Hell, even raise taxes slightly to fund public transport.
It's not like it would even have to be a brand new, bespoke order. If fairly modern DMUs were available for cascade then use those. But I don't count knackered 1980s technology with a diesel engine bodged in as fairly modern.


For the record, I hardly ever use the Buxton line. I'm not biased here.

You still haven't justified to me that the 319s are perfectly good, especially since they'll have to be replaced much sooner than new rolling stock would anyway. And if 319s are so amazing, why bother with 700s? Why not just run 319s in multiple for another few decades on the Luton line?

 

[A0]

Or just invest in new rolling stock as a public good, subsidised from general taxation. Hell, even raise taxes slightly to fund public transport.
It's not like it would even have to be a brand new, bespoke order. If fairly modern DMUs were available for cascade then use those. But I don't count knackered 1980s technology with a diesel engine bodged in as fairly modern.


For the record, I hardly ever use the Buxton line. I'm not biased here.

You still haven't justified to me that the 319s are perfectly good, especially since they'll have to be replaced much sooner than new rolling stock would anyway. And if 319s are so amazing, why bother with 700s? Why not just run 319s in multiple for another few decades on the Luton line?

Because the 319s lacked capacity having been designed as 4 car sets. Thameslink is about shifting people - alot of people - far more than any line into Manchester or Birmingham is trying to. The 700s have far more space - only having 2 cabs compared to 6 in a 12 car 319 being an example.

And why should taxes go up on all taxpayers for the benefit of the couple of hundred thousand in the North who'd get these trains when they already get massively subsidised fares already?

 

[py_megapixel]

And why should taxes go up on all taxpayers for the benefit of the couple of hundred thousand in the North who'd get these trains when they already get massively subsidised fares already?

I don't mean subsidy specifically for the Buxton line, I mean more rail subsidies in general. British rail fares aren't cheap when compared to the rest of Europe and when the service is so poor I don't think there can really be any culprit other than severe inefficiencies in the use of funds (which can be partially, but not wholly, attributed to the privatisation of the system), imbalances on where the funds are spent (and I appreciate that more investment needs to be made in better used parts, but where almost every London commuter will soon be whizzing around on shiny new EMUs while many Leeds and Manchester commuters pile onto 40-year-old four car diesels with barely room to move their hands, which on peak time services is at most a slight exaggeration, you know there is a problem), and, most obviously, a systematic lack of investment.

There seems to be a fundamental attitude that subsidies are bad, which in many cases I simply don't agree with.

 

[43096]

Or just invest in new rolling stock as a public good, subsidised from general taxation.

Ah, the good old magic money tree will fund it.

 

[A0]

, but where almost every London commuter will soon be whizzing around on shiny new EMUs while many Leeds and Manchester commuters pile onto 40-year-old four car diesels with barely room to move their hands, which on peak time services is at most a slight exaggeration, you know there is a problem), and, most obviously, a systematic lack of investment.

There seems to be a fundamental attitude that subsidies are bad, which in many cases I simply don't agree with.

Ah, here we go again, the poor, hard done by North.

In the mid 80s when those commuters in the north were getting new Sprinters, commuters into Paddington or Marylebone were travelling on 25 year old DMUs which continued for another decade.

Until recently the oldest units in regular use (excluding Island Line) were 313s plying their trade on commuter routes into Moorgate. And most GN outers were being covered by 40 year old class 317s as well.

The reason much of the London area has ended up with new stock is partly because of the withdrawl of slam door stock and partly because of the explosion in demand on many lines - overcrowding is commonplace on many London commuter services and that's with 8 car formations.

The north has, over the last 30 years seen alot of rail investment, arguably more than the South East or West Mids - yet both of those are economically more important to the country.

 

[Andyh82]

There just needs to be a plan to always be thinking about replacing the next oldest stock

Half the reason the pacers became so notorious particularly with Northern is because they outstayed their welcome and dominated the fleet so much. Now they’ve pretty much gone, there should be a plan for 150s to start to be withdrawn in a few years, and then after that plans for other types in 10, 15, 20 years.

Otherwise it’ll be pacers all over again where 10 years from now all the 150s are still in service and everything else around them have moved on to the next thing, and it becomes a big issue.

 

[py_megapixel]

There just needs to be a plan to always be thinking about replacing the next oldest stock

Half the reason the pacers became so notorious particularly with Northern is because they outstayed their welcome and dominated the fleet so much. Now they’ve pretty much gone, there should be a plan for 150s to start to be withdrawn in a few years, and then after that plans for other types in 10, 15, 20 years.

Otherwise it’ll be pacers all over again where 10 years from now all the 150s are still in service and everything else around them have moved on to the next thing, and it becomes a big issue.

Exactly.

150s, 31x and 153s in the next few years.Then 156s.Then 158s and 16x and 769s if they actually get any of the damn things in service. Then Turbostars. Then Networkers and 323s. You get the idea.

Of course, replacement by cascade is perfectly reasonable.

 

[4REP]

Except on the trains where it’s currently a 6-car beyond Salisbury, which would be a cut to capacity.

A 5 car bi mode could be built to have more seats than a 6 car 159 just like the system with IEP.

 

[Andyh82]

Exactly.

150s, 31x and 153s in the next few years.Then 156s.Then 158s and 16x and 769s if they actually get any of the damn things in service. Then Turbostars. Then Networkers and 323s. You get the idea.

Of course, replacement by cascade is perfectly reasonable.

I’ve always thought, the issue at Northern was always that they were one generation of stock behind, especially when you compare with the likes of Scotrail and London Midland who are now cascading the next generation of stock along.

I know not everything in London is brand new but you’ve generally got modern stock dominating and then the likes of Networkers secondary.

The fact 150s don’t have air con will increasingly stand out if we are 10 years down the line and nothing has happened.

 

[Gareth]

Half the reason the pacers became so notorious particularly with Northern is because they outstayed their welcome and dominated the fleet so much.

The other half is that they were originally meant for rural branch lines in places like Cornwall but ended up on busy commuter routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact 150s don’t have air con will increasingly stand out if we are 10 years down the line and nothing has happened.

As will the fact that 158s (and 166s) may as well not have aircon, as as soon as it gets slightly warm out comes the T-key and open go the windows.

It is now possible to make reliable railway aircon, and it is indeed reliable on most if not all post-privatisation rolling stock. The older stock where it isn't (because of systems designed for use with CFCs) becomes very visible indeed.