15X Fleet future & withdrawal

[BurtonM]

I was under the impression that TransPennine operates the diesel stopping services, not Northern. So the Class 185s wouldn’t directly benefit Northern unless they are sub-leased.

TPE have run the stoppers since 2018, they had to take them over from Northern because Northern's 15x and 142 were running too slow particularly over the moors, and would hold up faster services.

Haven't the 185s previously been subbed out to Northern?

 

[Railsecrets]

Just for clarity, at the present time there are no Huddersfield to Leeds stoppers operating. After Mirfield what would have been the Huddersfield stopper is diverted to Bradford via Halifax because Huddersfield currently only has two platforms available for use plus the Sheffield bay.
AIUI when the Huddersfield remodelling is complete, the Leeds stopper will return as there'll be space to turn it back. When the wires go up, it'll be an EMU of some sort.

They still is a Huddersfield - Leeds stopper that runs, but only at 0553 to leeds, and from leeds to Huddersfield at 2121 and 2224.
there’s also a Huddersfield to Bradford service at 0637

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==

That’s what I had expected. Thanks for confirming.

I was under the impression that TransPennine operates the diesel stopping services, not Northern. So the Class 185s wouldn’t directly benefit Northern unless they are sub-leased.

Correction: Northern took over the Huds - Leeds stopper fully in May 25

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They still is a Huddersfield - Leeds stopper that runs, but only at 0553 to leeds, and from leeds to Huddersfield at 2121 and 2224.
there’s also a Huddersfield to Bradford service at 0637

Indeed- I used the late evening service on the final day of service to Ravensthorpe in December.
Of course meant that the standard hourly stopper from Leeds to Huddersfield is diverted to and from Bradford Interchange, outside of services at the start and end of each day to get units off and back on to Hillhouse sidings. Even that doesn't run currently due to the Bradley Junction blockade, and next month will be affected by the route through Dewsbury being closed in the next round of TRU works.

 

[SC318250]

The lease extension, "https://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN547456", just states ScotRail are extending the lease for 76 156 vehicles, 38 units, I believe they currently have 42 units so it matches up. The ScotRail lease extension is from March 2027 but they may have agreed with the ROSCO to release/sub lease the units early to Northern, they are presumably units released by the East Kilbride electrification.

22/05/26
Lease now extended on all 42 Scotrail 156 sets.
The 4 that were due to leave are staying to support refurbishment for 4 years (I think)
Lease of the 38 units extented to Dec 32 with option of a further year.

Class 158 extented 3yrs to March 33 with option of 2 yr extension

Class 170 extended 10yrs to March 40, woth 2yr option.

 

[3RDGEN]

22/05/26
Lease now extended on all 42 Scotrail 156 sets.
The 4 that were due to leave are staying to support refurbishment for 4 years (I think)
Lease of the 38 units extented to Dec 32 with option of a further year.

Class 158 extented 3yrs to March 33 with option of 2 yr extension

Class 170 extended 10yrs to March 40, woth 2yr option.

The new extension, "https://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY556432" mentions "There is a Continued Service Operation (CSO) workstream in progress to restore the condition of the fleet due to their age which will ensure it can continue to operate for passenger service for the duration of the extension. To support this workstream 4 of ScotRail’s Tranche B vehicles will also be extended."

That could be corrosion repairs perhaps?

So Northern will not be getting those units.

 

[Cardiff123]

22/05/26
Lease now extended on all 42 Scotrail 156 sets.
The 4 that were due to leave are staying to support refurbishment for 4 years (I think)
Lease of the 38 units extented to Dec 32 with option of a further year.

Class 158 extented 3yrs to March 33 with option of 2 yr extension

Class 170 extended 10yrs to March 40, woth 2yr option.

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

 

[Cambrian359]

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

Yes England and wales

 

[Cardiff123]

Yes England and wales

Well Wales is withdrawing it's 150s, and has plans to withdraw it's 158s, leaving just it's 153s longer term.
ScotRail, GWR and Northern just seem to be soldiering on with their 15x fleets for the foreseeable future......

 

[Iskra]

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

Yes, Italy - ALn 663's.

 

[brad465]

Well Wales is withdrawing it's 150s, and has plans to withdraw it's 158s, leaving just it's 153s longer term.
ScotRail, GWR and Northern just seem to be soldiering on with their 15x fleets for the foreseeable future......

All of those TOCs are trying to get rid of them, but the DfT are dragging their heels with approving the tenders.

 

[Iskra]

All of those TOCs are trying to get rid of them, but the DfT are dragging their heels with approving the tenders.

Does it make commercial sense to wait and for GBR just to place one big order rather than three separate ones?

 

[brad465]

Does it make commercial sense to wait and for GBR just to place one big order rather than three separate ones?

Philip Haigh reported last year that GWR, SWR and Chiltern were discussing one big order for similar reasons. I've not heard anymore progress on this though. It might be something to watch out for in the run-up to GWR being nationalised (by which point all three TOCs in this group will be nationalised).

GWR, SWR and Chiltern possible combined fleet order - Philip Haigh

(Apologies if there is a thread not easily labelled on this already) According to Philip Haigh the DfT are talking to these three TOCs about replacing their diesel fleets within the same order: https://x.com/philatrail/status/1945423791624016286 DfT is talking with GWR, SWR and Chiltern about...

www.railforums.co.uk

I think every single TOC doing one combined fleet order though is going too far, as presumably they'd all go for the same manufacturer, which means construction will take forever. It might be worth the aforementioned three pursuing one order together, then Northern, Scotrail and possibly EMR combining for a different order independent of the other grouping. Southeastern will probably continue solo for theirs, as their needs are very different.

 

[Snow1964]

Does it make commercial sense to wait and for GBR just to place one big order rather than three separate ones?

It would make sense for them (or their shadow organisation under DfT) to order something universal in interim that could be allocated to multiple locations, pending GBR being fully established in few years time. If wait then could be 6 years before any new stock enters service, by which time going to have to pay for huge refurb, corrosion repairs, or major overhauls costs on life expired stock to keep it in extended service

Realistically the one type that should have been ordered by now is a regional train, about 70-100 of them. 5 or 6 cars (6 if there is a diesel power car), dual voltage BEMU, perhaps 110mph on electric, 90-100mph on battery or diesel. Suitable for longer regional services that are not high speed so fitted with seating that is comfortable enough for 3+ hours.

Allocate them to regional trains eg Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Exeter, Cardiff-Nottingham, and some of Northerns longer services with pairs of DMUs etc

Every other type of new train could wait, but these would have allowed 158, 159, 166, 168, 170 etc to be cascaded to replace oldest 15x.

Commercially, there is an expensive alternative cost of not placing an order, in form of extra major overhauls, refurbs, corrosion work, and higher running costs, and of obtaining obsolete parts to keep patching them up (although shadow GBR seems to have a policy of prefer wasting money on life extensions to old stock, than getting any replacements delivered before about 2031)

 

[Clarence Yard]

But they are not wasting their own money. The costs fall on the ROSCO, in the case of the majority of the 15x fleet.

That’s one of the advantages of the system - your lease prices do not rise if the ROSCO has to do more overhaul/corrosion work. Only when you go for a new lease does your non-cap element rise, unless they have capitalised the work and then your capital element will go up.

 

[43096]

But they are not wasting their own money. The costs fall on the ROSCO, in the case of the majority of the 15x fleet.

That’s one of the advantages of the system - your lease prices do not rise if the ROSCO has to do more overhaul/corrosion work. Only when you go for a new lease does your non-cap element rise, unless they have capitalised the work and then your capital element will go up.

But what if the units are on a dry lease?

 

[SC318250]

Am guessing that the 4 Scotrail 156 that are B fleet, are the ones that will be in the worst condition?
Do we have any idea which numbers?

 

[Snow1964]

But they are not wasting their own money. The costs fall on the ROSCO, in the case of the majority of the 15x fleet.

That’s one of the advantages of the system - your lease prices do not rise if the ROSCO has to do more overhaul/corrosion work. Only when you go for a new lease does your non-cap element rise, unless they have capitalised the work and then your capital element will go up.

That is true in isolation, but in reality ROSCO will set its profit margin as it is a commercial business, and if it gets hit with extra costs, will just raise prices on renewal.

End up paying double because they raise prices, both to recover their shortfall for extra work they had to pay for, and they up their risk factor of it happening again, so have an even bigger increase to protect them from a repeat.

The idea that ROSCO will take the hit, and operator/DFT got a good deal, without it coming back to sting on renewal is just fantasy (or blinkered selective view) by some officialdom. Just have to look at some of the renewed lease rates compared to those 10+ years ago for same stock to see how the operators are being hammered now on renewals, and paying out much more than they saved short term.

 

[Farnborough]

It would make sense for them (or their shadow organisation under DfT) to order something...

Let's see if the magic cheque book of nationalisation is as open as many hoped.

 

[JonathanH]

Let's see if the magic cheque book of nationalisation is as open as many hoped.

Let's see if the magic savings of nationalisation many hope for open up some funding.

The thinking is all around not paying money out of the industry, not introducing more funding, although clearly rolling stock is one area where money will still be leaving the industry in private profit.

 

[Peterthegreat]

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

The oldest dmus are probably the Romanian Malaxa units. Still in regular service and approaching 90 years old!

 

[Clarence Yard]

That is true in isolation, but in reality ROSCO will set its profit margin as it is a commercial business, and if it gets hit with extra costs, will just raise prices on renewal.

End up paying double because they raise prices, both to recover their shortfall for extra work they had to pay for, and they up their risk factor of it happening again, so have an even bigger increase to protect them from a repeat.

The idea that ROSCO will take the hit, and operator/DFT got a good deal, without it coming back to sting on renewal is just fantasy (or blinkered selective view) by some officialdom. Just have to look at some of the renewed lease rates compared to those 10+ years ago for same stock to see how the operators are being hammered now on renewals, and paying out much more than they saved short term.

That is what I said! Renewal is when your costs go up but, crucially, not before. The complete opposite to when you owned the stock where overhauls and heavy repairs were significant and lumpy items to fund.

Most of the 15x are not on dry leases so there is protection there but in every case, you don’t want to renewing on short leases because your lease costs will be tend to be much higher. The DfT have been asking for this and then wondering why the costs go up! The longer the better, if you are renewing, so you get the benefit of spreading the costs of work over several years.

Now the game must be to get out of the older 15x as soon as your current lease ends or get an extension on current terms, to avoid all that age related cost hitting your books.

 

[D365]

Now the game must be to get out of the older 15x as soon as your current lease ends or get an extension on current terms, to avoid all that age related cost hitting your books.

Indeed, hence why Porterbrook (so far) has not been re-leasing their ex TfW Class 150/2s.

 

[MattRat]

Indeed, hence why Porterbrook (so far) has not been re-leasing their ex TfW Class 150/2s.

I wonder how much power ROSCOs have in fleet discussion. Like if they just refuse to lease old units, would the DFT and Treasury be backed into a corner?

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed, hence why Porterbrook (so far) has not been re-leasing their ex TfW Class 150/2s.

Around 6 or 7 years ago, there were a whole series of PRM reduced mobility exemptions for TfW 150s, with short term exemptions whilst TfW continued to use them pending withdrawal.

Unless the work to upgrade them has been done, probably worthless, as a new operator might not get new exemptions approved for non compliant stock they didn't previously have.

 

[Cardiff123]

Around 6 or 7 years ago, there were a whole series of PRM reduced mobility exemptions for TfW 150s, with short term exemptions whilst TfW continued to use them pending withdrawal.

Unless the work to upgrade them has been done, probably worthless, as a new operator might not get new exemptions approved for non compliant stock they didn't previously have.

All of TfW's 150s had the work done and are PRM compliant.
There might have been exemptions given as the PRM work on the 150s didn't commence until 2018, but eventually they were all done.

I think you might be getting the 150s mixed up with the Pacers, that were given exemptions until May 2021 and then withdrawn.

 

[MichaelTrains]

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

It’s disgusting what they expect us to put up with.

 

[172007]

So trains that are now 40 years old are being given extensions for another 6/7 years, with no mention of planning for their replacements?
Is there any other country in Europe that is still using 40+ year old DMUs in daily passenger service?

Germany has the class 628's in regular use, built 1974 - 1981. Just over 200 in service possibly.

French also seem to have quite a sizeable fleets of trains, hundreds built 1980 - 1988.

 

[The exile]

It’s disgusting what they expect us to put up with.

What, precisely, about Sprinters is “disgusting”. OK - they’re reaching the end of their life (happens to us all) and lack a few mod-cons but (in general ) they work and do the job they’re needed for. If you’re referring to the inadequate provision of stock (ie a 2 car train turning up where 5 are needed or even diagrammed) I can see your point a bit more, but provision of new stock has had an unfortunate tendency to exacerbate that problem, rather than alleviate it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2026 ==

Germany has the class 628's in regular use, built 1974 - 1981. Just over 200 in service possibly.

And the platform /train interface on those would fail UK accessibility regulation point blank!

 

[172007]

It’s disgusting what they expect us to put up with.

Trains are not fashion accessories like many people treat cars; many won't have the old model etc.

Trains are built to last and plenty will be perfectly good for what they do, yes they may not have aircon or USB sockets etc, little noisy, bit tired and dated interiorwise. These reasons are not neccassarily enough to scrap them.

Tbh all the 15x's and 165/66's should should have been replaced when interest rates were low as what happened with the class 350/2 fleet when new trains leasing costs were/are significantly lower.

 

[The exile]

Germany has the class 628's in regular use, built 1974 - 1981. Just over 200 in service possibly.

To be fair, those are the dates for the two prototype series - the main production didn’t even start till the late 1980s and the ones still in service are only about 30 years old. Doesn’t alter the fact that the concept is now 50 years old. Remaining 420 emus (OK, so there aren’t many) are of similar vintage. Doesn’t even approach the age that The pre-war Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn units achieved in service.