Worth re-engining the 150s or 156s?

[py_megapixel]

Could the 150s or 156s be fitted with new engines?

A modern engine would - one would presume - improve fuel efficiency significantly, reduce carbon emissions and air pollution (important given Northern's units in particular spend a lot of time in city centres) and possibly reduce the amount of unwanted noise in the passenger saloon. I wonder if a modern engine could also yield better acceleration as well, though I'm not too sure how these things work.

The question though is whether it would be worth doing for the amount of time these units are likely to be running for.

 

[DB]

156s - maybe. 150s probably not - next time there's a DMU cull, they will be in line now that the Pacers have gone.

 

[AM9]

Could the 150s or 156s be fitted with new engines?

A modern engine would - one would presume - improve fuel efficiency significantly, reduce carbon emissions and air pollution (important given Northern's units in particular spend a lot of time in city centres) and possibly reduce the amount of unwanted noise in the passenger saloon. I wonder if a modern engine could also yield better acceleration as well, though I'm not too sure how these things work.

The question though is whether it would be worth doing for the amount of time these units are likely to be running for.

I doubt that a more modern engine alone will make that much difference, - reduced emissions would result in line with contemporary legislation, but that comes at a price of weight, space and usually power output. Had the 150s been created as DEMUs, a simple replacement of a diesel prime mover would allow more efficient use of the engine's power characteristics.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Both fleets are said to be on their last legs structurally by those in the know, so even if there was a plan to do so the bodyshells would fall apart while the new engines were still under warranty.

That aside, new engines would have to meet stricter emissions standards, which requires hefty exhaust treatment equipment. You might be able to fit that kit on a 23m class 156 vehicle but you'd struggle on a 20m 150. There's a reason the only 20m vehicles built in the last 25 years have been electric.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably very little point when you can fit engines to an EMU and get a bi-mode, probably at not entirely dissimilar cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2021 ==

There's a reason the only 20m vehicles built in the last 25 years have been electric.

Except 769s. OK, they're not new, but they are 20m vehicles with modern diesel engines underneath.

And 230s, which are 18m vehicles with modern diesel engines underneath.

 

[AM9]

Both fleets are said to be on their last legs structurally by those in the know, so even if there was a plan to do so the bodyshells would fall apart while the new engines were still under warranty.

That aside, new engines would have to meet stricter emissions standards, which requires hefty exhaust treatment equipment. You might be able to fit that kit on a 23m class 156 vehicle but you'd struggle on a 20m 150. There's a reason the only 20m vehicles built in the last 25 years have been electric.

The reason is that almost all EMUs built in the last 25 years have been for London and the south-east use where 20m long stock has been the norm since nationalisation. Most DMUs have been for use elsewhere where 23m has become the norm. So the few diesel units that are needed in the south-east (e.g. class 158s and 171s) are 23m designs for the areas where they are normally allocated.

 

[hexagon789]

Sure, I'll gladly have my local 156s re-engined with QSK19s please!

 

[Energy]

Sure, I'll gladly have my local 156s re-engined with QSK19s please!

Given the state of the structure of the train it may fall apart with 750hp!

 

[pdeaves]

Genuine questions.
Why the (general, not aimed at any particular person) obsession with keeping old trains going on and on and on? I doubt many people would re-engine a car; you just dispose of it and get a new one that meets the current requirement. Why is the view on trains any different (particularly amongst those who don't make the operational, maintenance or investment decisions in the TOC)?

 

[Energy]

Genuine questions.
Why the (general, not aimed at any particular person) obsession with keeping old trains going on and on and on? I doubt many people would re-engine a car; you just dispose of it and get a new one that meets the current requirement. Why is the view on trains any different (particularly amongst those who don't make the operational, maintenance or investment decisions in the TOC)?

Not really sure why the 150 and 156s, neither are that well liked, especially the former. Usually re-engineering is suggested for trains people don't want to see leave.

 

[37057]

Genuine questions.
Why the (general, not aimed at any particular person) obsession with keeping old trains going on and on and on? I doubt many people would re-engine a car; you just dispose of it and get a new one that meets the current requirement. Why is the view on trains any different (particularly amongst those who don't make the operational, maintenance or investment decisions in the TOC)?

I guess it can be cost effective and that the people who post these ideas do it as if they're pitching these ideas to a TOC (not that I think that's a bad thing, it's a harmless discussion on a forum after all, that can sometimes spark interesting discussions).

I'd be inclined to disagree that the traction in this topic would be worth while though. They're a little past the optimal age to be life extended in my opinion.

To analyse the car analogy - when you buy a new car it's usually a mass produced product served to a large consumer base which influences the price tag and the impact to your life from car to car you own is quite minimal. They all generally operate in the same manner.

New trains (especially those for the UK loading gauge) don't really fall into any of those points so the comparison doesn't really hold up. They're built to strict quantities to a fairly small market, so naturally the price tag is much larger. For each new fleet of train introduced, the TOC needs to evolve. East Coast & Great Western are probably good examples of this by comparing the businesses during HST re-engineering vs IET deployment.

Besides, previous franchise agreements often dictated these decisions and will most likely continue however the TOCs will be operated in future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genuine questions.
Why the (general, not aimed at any particular person) obsession with keeping old trains going on and on and on? I doubt many people would re-engine a car; you just dispose of it and get a new one that meets the current requirement. Why is the view on trains any different (particularly amongst those who don't make the operational, maintenance or investment decisions in the TOC)?

Because the cost of a train is so high, it is more like a house than a car in terms of how you maintain it. You don't knock your house down because it needs a new central heating boiler, because building a new house would cost well over £100K and a new heating boiler costs about £5K fitted. Whereas if your car engine blows up, you won't fit a new one, because a new engine is also going to be around £5K but the car probably only costs about £20K brand new.

I don't think re-engining something as old and basic as a 150 or 156 is worth it. But it has been done with things like HSTs, even ignoring the EMU to DEMU/bi-mode conversions.

 

[Irascible]

Would think something heavily used like that is starting to have some fatigue issues, as well as corrosion - plus if you're doing a full rebuild like that you'll have to either replace all the ancilliaries and the control systems, or design something new to mate the old systems to the new kit anyway, and then you're refurbishing the interior too - so what are you actually reusing? a body which needs corrosion work and is probably starting to creak - which you might want to re-engineer in places like the doors too, and the running gear. I'm not sure how much you could grandfather in as an 80s design either, standards-wise.

Might be worth it if they're sufficiently overengineered at base to last another couple of decades without the maintenance getting astronomical - as some sort of capability gap filler if we know there's a medium-term plan for radical change - but I think we're better off planning to shift to electric traction with the source of the electricity being from onboard diesel generators as an option.

 

[py_megapixel]

Genuine questions.
Why the (general, not aimed at any particular person) obsession with keeping old trains going on and on and on? I doubt many people would re-engine a car; you just dispose of it and get a new one that meets the current requirement. Why is the view on trains any different (particularly amongst those who don't make the operational, maintenance or investment decisions in the TOC)?

Not really sure why the 150 and 156s, neither are that well liked, especially the former. Usually re-engineering is suggested for trains people don't want to see leave.

As I'm OP, I'll respond to this.

I hate the 150s and 156s, and I make no secret of that. I can't wait to see the back of them.

However, a slew of errors by DfT and Arriva have meant that they are likely to be running for many years to come, despite being - in my view - very outdated. My thinking was, given that the engines are the source of many of my complaints about 150s (inefficient, polluting, noisy, rattly, sluggish), if the 150s are likely to be running for a long time to come, replacing them might make sense.

 

[grangergranger]

Seeing the 769 Project, it clearly shows that re-engining an old unit is not worth while at all. The 769s were meant to be in service back in May 2018, but it took 2 and a half years for one to even be in service and northerns are still not in service.
The only significant work I can imagine is some sort of catalytic converter added to the exhaust.
Other than that ...
Might as well order new units, instead of trying to keep the old and rusting ones alive, spending so much many for them just to be replaced anyway.

​

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seeing the 769 Project, it clearly shows that re-engining an old unit is not worth while at all. The 769s were meant to be in service back in May 2018, but it took 2 and a half years for one to even be in service and northerns are still not in service.

And how long, pray, has it taken to get the 9-car 345s working? New kit has problems too. And EMUs are much simpler than DMUs.

 

[Greybeard33]

Government policy is to phase out diesel traction, so investment funds should be directed to electrification projects, not wasted on brand new diesel engines that would likely be scrapped while still young.

 

[py_megapixel]

Government policy is to phase out diesel traction

I'll believe that when I see a cohesive strategy to get wires up, preferably on a rolling basis, along as many routes as possible...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll believe that when I see a cohesive strategy to get wires up, preferably on a rolling basis, along as many routes as possible...

<shovels the bionic duckweed into the firebox>

 

[JModulo]

The only significant work I can imagine is some sort of catalytic converter added to the exhaust.
Other than that ...

​

This, aslong with AdBlue injection into the exhaust, has already been carried out to the SWR 159 Fleet, possibly their 158s too. I believe this is also going to be rolled out on other 158s. Whilst the OP mentions 150/156s, the 158s still use the Cummins NT855, albeit a more uprated version.

 

[Energy]

Whilst the OP mentions 150/156s, the 158s still use the Cummins NT855, albeit a more uprated version.

its 350 (400 on some 159s) compared to 286, the extra power definitely helps.

 

[hexagon789]

Given the state of the structure of the train it may fall apart with 750hp!

Nothing a bit of duck tape won't fix

 

[Mikey C]

Government policy is to phase out diesel traction, so investment funds should be directed to electrification projects, not wasted on brand new diesel engines that would likely be scrapped while still young.

On the other hand, it might make more sense to reengine Sprinters to get them to last the next 10/15 years rather than buying more DMUs which potentially have a short life. Or expensive Bimodes

 

[JModulo]

On the other hand, it might make more sense to reengine Sprinters to get them to last the next 10/15 years rather than buying more DMUs which potentially have a short life. Or expensive Bimodes

Why at this stage though, the bodyshells are getting a bit beyond it in some cases now.

 

[Mikey C]

Why at this stage though, the bodyshells are getting a bit beyond it in some cases now.

But is there actually a plan to withdraw them, as if not chances are they'll be in service for up to 10 years, especially the 156s

 

[JModulo]

But is there actually a plan to withdraw them, as if not chances are they'll be in service for up to 10 years, especially the 156s

The old saying though if it ain't broke don't fix it. Alot of people also think that simply putting a newer engine in is an easy option. The NT855s are old school in the fact that the engines are still pretty mechanical and have less to go wrong.

 

[DB]

Seeing the 769 Project, it clearly shows that re-engining an old unit is not worth while at all. The 769s were meant to be in service back in May 2018, but it took 2 and a half years for one to even be in service and northerns are still not in service.

There have been a good few examples of new trains being late into service as well! Conversely, the replacement of the engines in most of the HST fleet went ahead without major problems.

Just because one project has proven problematic doesn't necessarily mean that the concept is bad.

 

[skyhigh]

Honest question- having seen how much of the bodywork has been replaced during the recent upgrades on the Northern 150s (and the cost spent on them), are the bodyshells past it, or are they in reasonably good condition now?

 

[hexagon789]

Honest question- having seen how much of the bodywork has been replaced during the recent upgrades on the Northern 150s (and the cost spent on them), are the bodyshells past it, or are they in reasonably good condition now?

The 156s seem to be suffering from corrosion, the 150s while older I believe were constructed differently so may actually be in better nick in that respect, I'm not sure.

 

[JModulo]

Honest question- having seen how much of the bodywork has been replaced during the recent upgrades on the Northern 150s (and the cost spent on them), are the bodyshells past it, or are they in reasonably good condition now?

Not sure about other operators but I know the ScotRail 156s aren't particularly great, some of which have been stopped recently for months due to corrosion issues. This is even after a relatively recent overhaul.