Some suggestion of use with East West Rail has been hypothecated on the forum as a requirement for 14 3-car 100mph units fits with the 16 3-car units available. I guess they could also be of use to GWR to replace short HSTs if not needed by EWR. DfT will have a plan.
158s for EWR have been speculated before. In reality though most relatively modern units are supposed to be capable of in-cab-signalling fitment fairly easily.
What use do they have for them?
All trains need to be fitted with the 'special signalling equipment'. The EWR requirement is for 100mph and 3-car units. The TfW 158s aren't more suitable just because they already have ETCS.
Not obvious to me how 175s would fit in to either in any sensible way.
It isn't about 20 vs 30 year old units - ETCS is going to have to be fitted to everything anyway - 158s don't do 100mph or have 3 cars.
The 379s don't have fatigue issues around the bogies....
They could indeed replace their 68+Mk3 trains with 175s but equally they may be able to just eliminate those as a result of lower future demand.
Is it though? Given these things tend to be built for 35-40 year lifespans, taking on 20 rather than 30 year old trains means twice as long before a fleet replacement.
Chiltern don't have HSTs but I assume you mean the 68-hauled sets. However, the 68s are actually newer than the 175s so in terms of emissions/efficiency and also reliability that would be a downgrade. The Mk3s despite being older aren't in a bad state internally.
The Mid Cheshire and Hope Valley are commuter routes into Manchester and Chester/Sheffield respectively. They get busy at peak times. The large vestibules will pose an issue for dwell times.
It is highly unlikely that HMT would authorise one penny piece on more new rolling stock for Northern.
Yes, with a suitable gangway adapter. Is that relevant though?
They were actually used on peak time Mid-Cheshire Line services in FNW days. I actually think they'd make a perfect fit on the proposed semi-fasts.
Yes - as long as said semi-fasts don't share their diagrams with the stoppers, and as long as they're actually introduced at all.
That is a decision for the leasing company though isn't it. EWR had a competition to obtain 12-14 suitable units. Angel own both the TfW 158s and the 175s. Who knows what deal Angel Trains put forward to tout their units and whether they think there is a credible chance of them fitting in better at Northern or EWR (or somewhere else)? Who knows what deal Porterbrook and Eversholt and the other companies will have put forward?
A lot of Northern traincrew will already know 158s. 175s bring new training requirements that 158s don't.
All of which are at least a decade away. If they were happening right now, you'd have to start counting the days of the 150s & 155s, but we're not at that stage.
Can only concur. The average passenger couldn't give a stuff about "interesting" so long as the train turns up on time, isn't filthy, has air con just like their car... and gets them where they want to go without paying a ridiculous fare.
I'd add getting a (ideally comfortable) seat but otherwise agree.
Air conditioning was hardly unheard of in cars in 2006, let alone 2011.
My cars have had air conditioning for the last 20 years (going back to a fairly basic fiesta) and it was hardly a new concept back then.
8-car of anything would be a nightmare on triangle services. Most of the platforms are only long enough for a 4 car 333/331. The idea of 6 car 331s works because at least some of both units would fit on the platform at every station. With an 8 car 350 (given they're slightly shorter than 333s) you might just about fit one door of the rear/front unit on. I realise 350s have gangways, but it'll still be a nightmare making sure passengers are in the right part of the train. You'd need to lengthen pretty much every platform for that to work.
