15X Fleet future & withdrawal

[Cardiff123]

What confirmed plans are there to replace the BR built 15X class of DMU's in the coming years?

150/1s & 150/2s are now 40+ years old
153s are 38 years old
156s are 38 years old
158s are 35 years old

As far as I know, TfW are the only operator with confirmed plans to withdraw and replace their 15X fleet over the next 2 years, with their 150/2s already being sent for scrap as they come up for C6 overhauls. They are keeping 153s for the Heart of Wales, but those will need to be replaced eventually.

Do Scotrail, GWR & Northern have any confirmed plans to replace their 15X fleets in the next 5 years?

There's no doubting the 15X fleet has provided reliable workhorses for the railway over the past 4 decades, but the units do have their issues, such as the hopeless air-conditioning on the 158s that has never been reliable, often making them mobile ovens in the summer.

 

[Snow1964]

All have outline proposals, mainly involving BEMUs (battery electric multiple units) but none have placed orders yet, so likely to be another 4-6 years before any replacements in service.

There is a DfT procurement spreadsheet which has expected fleets last updated in February but dates just seem to move away at intervals (Scotland is separate under Scottish Government)

Future commercial contracts for DfT and partners

Listing of upcoming Department for Transport (DfT) and associated bodies commercial contracts – known as the commercial pipeline – for which bidders may apply.

www.gov.uk

The Chiltern 165 and 168, and SWR 159s don't seem to be covered by the proposed new vehicles list, so will presumably get hand me downs from elsewhere.

 

[Cardiff123]

I find it astonishing that TfW is the only operator with confirmed plans to replace their 15X fleet. No doubt if BR still existed (eg. A truly joined up railway, with operator, rolling stock ownership & procurement and infrastructure all under the same ownership) there would be confirmed plans to replace the 15X fleet now, and/or it will have already been replaced, or would be in the process of being replaced now, as with TfW.

 

[Failed Unit]

I suspect that if BR had, we probably would see an electrify and cascade policy. Especially with the 350/2 about to go into store.

Even with what we know is committed, some DMUs on the TPE routes will be going directly to EMU once the project is live. Too much dithering be respective governments, which to be fair is still happening as the technology for some of these proposals is probably still not as advanced as they would hope.

 

[Snow1964]

Too much dithering be respective governments, which to be fair is still happening as the technology for some of these proposals is probably still not as advanced as they would hope.

I think there is also a reluctance by some in procurement to over specify requirements which delays things. Instead of simply saying needs to do X and Y and fit UK gauge track, they try and come out with long lists of specs with mins and max.

So instead of getting a UK version of a tested and working and being built elsewhere in Europe BEMU, eg Austria, Italy, Ireland etc, we end up specifying some untested train to meet invented specs with all the cost and reliability risks and high risk modified software.

 

[Failed Unit]

I am old enough to remember when the sprinters / pacers / turbos were introduced, BR did have some kind of masterplan but things didn't always work out. Network South East electrics killing off some DMUs. Ex NSE EMUs on some of the regional railways schemes. However even now when you look back what was Leeds - Skipton / Ilkley electrified ahead of the transpennie route? (Different thread)

Saying that they did get things wrong and by 1993 when they were trying to sell it off a few 101's and local haulled diagrams lived on because they didn't order enough DMUs.

 

[I'm here now]

Project churchwood for gwr - though not exactly clear what with (cl. 230s?).

 

[The exile]

However even now when you look back what was Leeds - Skipton / Ilkley electrified ahead of the transpennie route? (Different thread)

A nice, self contained, reasonably intensively served set of routes- and no doubt a lot of pressure (and money?) from WYPTE. Trans-Pennine was / is a much bigger ballgame (no wires Manchester - Liverpool at the time either - not to mention all the “extensions” for which bi-modes are needed.

 

[Failed Unit]

A nice, self contained, reasonably intensively served set of routes- and no doubt a lot of pressure (and money?) from WYPTE. Trans-Pennine was / is a much bigger ballgame (no wires Manchester - Liverpool at the time either - not to mention all the “extensions” for which bi-modes are needed.

I do remember the PTEs funded a lot of rolling stock back then. No sure how it really worked. The 321s on the Doncaster - Leeds route that people will thank them for, a significant number of the pacers that people may not.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What confirmed plans are there to replace the BR built 15X class of DMU's in the coming years?

150/1s & 150/2s are now 40+ years old
153s are 38 years old
156s are 38 years old
158s are 35 years old

As far as I know, TfW are the only operator with confirmed plans to withdraw and replace their 15X fleet over the next 2 years, with their 150/2s already being sent for scrap as they come up for C6 overhauls. They are keeping 153s for the Heart of Wales, but those will need to be replaced eventually.

Do Scotrail, GWR & Northern have any confirmed plans to replace their 15X fleets in the next 5 years?

There's no doubting the 15X fleet has provided reliable workhorses for the railway over the past 4 decades, but the units do have their issues, such as the hopeless air-conditioning on the 158s that has never been reliable, often making them mobile ovens in the summer.

I think you need to divide the family into the earlier Sprinter classes (150/153/155/156), which are really falling apart and need more urgent replacements, and then you have the Express Sprinters (158/159s), which will survive for much longer.

Bearing that in mind, the 158s at TfW could go to Northern to send some of their worst 150s to the scrapheap finally, and, if the discontinuous electrification plan on the West of England line proves to be successful, the SWR 158/159s could eliminate most of the 150s

 

[Cardiff123]

I think you need to divide the family into the earlier Sprinter classes (150/153/155/156), which are really falling apart and need more urgent replacements, and then you have the Express Sprinters (158/159s), which will survive for much longer.

Bearing that in mind, the 158s at TfW could go to Northern to send some of their worst 150s to the scrapheap finally, and, if the discontinuous electrification plan on the West of England line proves to be successful, the SWR 158/159s could eliminate most of the 150s

And yet TfW intend to keep using their 153s for the foreseeable future, along with Scotrail, with 156s + Active Travel 153s on the West Highland line.

But with 158s and our climate getting hotter, with much warmer/hotter spring and summer weather, is it reasonable to expect people to endure the sweatbox conditions of 158s? I don't understand why the air con on 158s has never been properly fixed, and if it can't be fixed, I can't see how it can be justified keeping 158s in service long term, or even short term.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I do remember the PTEs funded a lot of rolling stock back then. No sure how it really worked. The 321s on the Doncaster - Leeds route that people will thank them for, a significant number of the pacers that people may not.

Pacers, lousy as they were in many aspects, allowed improved frequencies on routes that otherwise wouldn't have got them. Not to mention the reintroduction of services such as the Wakefield to Knottingley line. If BR had only ordered Sprinters there probably wouldn't have been enough slack in the fleet to allow this.

 

[AlastairFraser]

And yet TfW intend to keep using their 153s for the foreseeable future, along with Scotrail, with 156s + Active Travel 153s on the West Highland line.

The 153s I've been on aren't remotely in the same state that 150s are - they're a small fleet with TfW too, so they could be easily replaced with a small surplus 2 car Civity order later on if the Welsh Government so desired.
With ScotRail, it's less crucial that they are in super great condition for what they are used for.

But with 158s and our climate getting hotter, with much warmer/hotter spring and summer weather, is it reasonable to expect people to endure the sweatbox conditions of 158s? I don't understand why the air con on 158s has never been properly fixed, and if it can't be fixed, I can't see how it can be justified keeping 158s in service long term, or even short term.

It's all about priorities and I don't think conditions on board the train for a month or two a year (especially if you cascade them up north - temps inside the train may be more of an issue in the GWR operating area, compared to the typical Lancs/Yorks/Cumbria/Northumberland weather).
I think most customers up here on Northern's network prioritise trains operating on time and speed/reliability, and the 158s do at least have opening hopper windows that help to alleviate conditions if the aircon is on the blink that day.

 

[irish_rail]

I find it astonishing that TfW is the only operator with confirmed plans to replace their 15X fleet. No doubt if BR still existed (eg. A truly joined up railway, with operator, rolling stock ownership & procurement and infrastructure all under the same ownership) there would be confirmed plans to replace the 15X fleet now, and/or it will have already been replaced, or would be in the process of being replaced now, as with TfW.

Be careful what you wish for. The Welsh are getting toiletless trams to replace the 150s, newer isn't automatically better.

 

[Grecian 1998]

The current proposal for replacement of the 159s on the West of England is discontinuous 3rd rail electrification and then fitting class 450s with batteries. I understand the 450s would be refurbished - I don't think anyone is suggesting 2+3 commuter seating is ideal when a sizeable proportion of passengers will be travelling for more than 90 minutes, even if end to end traffic is limited.

Whether this will actually work or not remains to be seen.

But with 158s and our climate getting hotter, with much warmer/hotter spring and summer weather, is it reasonable to expect people to endure the sweatbox conditions of 158s? I don't understand why the air con on 158s has never been properly fixed, and if it can't be fixed, I can't see how it can be justified keeping 158s in service long term, or even short term.

A number of operators including SWT / SWR and I think EMR have replaced the original system. It isn't perfect, but it's a lot more reliable up to at least 30C. I assume TfW haven't as their 158s usually have the windows open in the summer.

If you want really abysmal air con, try GWR's 166s. They're comparative whippersnappers at 33, so won't be going anywhere for a while yet.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a thread back in February about 158/159 replacement that the OP might have missed:

How long will the Class 158 & 159 soldier on for?

Class 158 and 159 have now been around for a considerable amount of time. From memory 158s were built between 1989 and 1992 and 159s were with between 1992 and 1993. I wonder how many more years before we see these units withdraw from service or will they solider on for many more years like 205...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Trainman40083]

I am sure somewhere there was something about Northern looking for financier options for their Sprinter fleet replacement. In terms of Chiltern, with them likely to take on the Mk5 coaches with 68s, that might release Class 168 DMUs. TPE also has a tender out, that should see some Class 185s released. They could replace units on day longer distance Northern runs.

 

[Farnborough]

Too much dithering be respective governments...

Which will, now they have full day-to-day control, become even worse.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The current proposal for replacement of the 159s on the West of England is discontinuous 3rd rail electrification and then fitting class 450s with batteries. I understand the 450s would be refurbished - I don't think anyone is suggesting 2+3 commuter seating is ideal when a sizeable proportion of passengers will be travelling for more than 90 minutes, even if end to end traffic is limited.

Whether this will actually work or not remains to be seen.

Hopefully it does. It would be much better for SWR to be an electric-only network, and the London-Salisbury shorts/Romsey Rounders (Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton) would be relatively easy to convert early on.

It's only roughly 34 miles from the end of current 3rd rail electrification at Worting Junction west of Basingstoke to Salisbury, which is within the realm of current feasible BEMU battery capacity. With some charging during downtime at Salisbury between journeys and a charging island around Andover, this would seem a good pilot project to prove bi-mode third-rail/BEMU reliability for the wider network.

With the Romsey rounders, the longest unelectrified section is approx. 22 miles between Salisbury and Redbridge, so charging at Salisbury and then it uses the 3rd rail section between Redbridge and Eastleigh. So probably even easier to convert than the London to Salisbury shorts.

In terms of Chiltern, with them likely to take on the Mk5 coaches with 68s, that might release Class 168 DMUs.

The Mk5s are to replace the Mk3 coaches I think, not to replace DMUs.

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect that if BR had, we probably would see an electrify and cascade policy.

BR would be struggling with access to Treasury funding, as much as the current operators are. It is fairly clear that electrification is difficult to fund when the alternative of battery power avoids the (significant) infrastructure costs.

 

[Trainman40083]

Hopefully it does. It would be much better for SWR to be an electric-only network, and the London-Salisbury shorts/Romsey Rounders (Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton) would be relatively easy to convert early on.

It's only roughly 34 miles from the end of current 3rd rail electrification at Worting Junction west of Basingstoke to Salisbury, which is within the realm of current feasible BEMU battery capacity. With some charging during downtime at Salisbury between journeys and a charging island around Andover, this would seem a good pilot project to prove bi-mode third-rail/BEMU reliability for the wider network.

With the Romsey rounders, the longest unelectrified section is approx. 22 miles between Salisbury and Redbridge, so charging at Salisbury and then it uses the 3rd rail section between Redbridge and Eastleigh. So probably even easier to convert than the London to Salisbury shorts.

The Mk5s are to replace the Mk3 coaches I think, not to replace DMUs.

I'd heard this week, that there might be more Mk5 sets etc, than current MK3 sets...Would see more Birmingham diagrams with locos, but time will tell. Cracking way of releasing DMUs.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'd heard this week, that there might be more Mk5 sets etc, than current MK3 sets...Would see more Birmingham diagrams with locos, but time will tell. Cracking way of releasing DMUs.

If any DMUs are released, it would make sense to get any remaining 165s off the Oxford services with the surplus 168s and cascade a few 165s off to GWR.

Cascading 168s would just mean more fragmentation and GWR could use them to get rid of a few more 150s in the South West earlier than predicted.

 

[43096]

Project churchwood for gwr - though not exactly clear what with (cl. 230s?).

It’s Churchward.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Mk5s are to replace the Mk3 coaches I think, not to replace DMUs.

Bit of both; the first four Mk5 rakes, by May 2026, will replace the Mk3s like for like.

The rest - by December 2026 - will displace the 168s off the Birmingham route to allow extra capacity on other Chiltern services - but it is correct that it won't trigger any withdrawals of the 165s. It will apparently also allow the loaned 196s to be returned to the Midlands.

 

[stevieinselby]

However even now when you look back what was Leeds - Skipton / Ilkley electrified ahead of the transpennie route? (Different thread)

The Airedale and Wharfedale lines made a lot more sense as a follow-on to the ECML electrification than attempting to do the whole of the Transpennine Express network (which, remember, was only recently established as a coherent brand back then).
Airedale & Wharfedale - about 80 track miles, almost all of which seeing 3tph of electrifiable services.
Transpennine - about 560 track miles (core plus branches to Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Hull, Liverpool and Blackpool via Bradford), with the core seeing 3tph but all of the branches seeing only 1tph.

 

[Cardiff123]

Be careful what you wish for. The Welsh are getting toiletless trams to replace the 150s, newer isn't automatically better.

The toiletless trams debate has been done to death elsewhere on this forum.
Modern, purpose built, electric Stadler tram-trains, with 2+2 high back seating and air conditioning, that will allow a 4tph service to the heads of each Valley and at least 12tph through Pontypridd, is an absolute step change in service when compared to noisy, old, life expired, dirty, diesel class 150s. To suggest anything else is just being silly.

 

[deltic08]

I suspect that if BR had, we probably would see an electrify and cascade policy. Especially with the 350/2 about to go into store.

Even with what we know is committed, some DMUs on the TPE routes will be going directly to EMU once the project is live. Too much dithering be respective governments, which to be fair is still happening as the technology for some of these proposals is probably still not as advanced as they would hope.

185s to Exeter-Waterloo?

 

[bluenoxid]

Whilst the electrification of Aire Valley and Wharfedale lines are mentioned on a thread about fleet replacements/cascades, I note that the class 141 fleet was withdrawn in 1997, a chunk of which was contributed to by the units released by the electrification.

 

[Snow1964]

The current proposal for replacement of the 159s on the West of England is discontinuous 3rd rail electrification and then fitting class 450s with batteries. I understand the 450s would be refurbished - I don't think anyone is suggesting 2+3 commuter seating is ideal when a sizeable proportion of passengers will be travelling for more than 90 minutes, even if end to end traffic is limited.

Of course if a sub fleet of 450s is to gain batteries, there is nothing to stop them being reseated to long distance (comfortable) 2+2 seating too.

It would also be possible to start from 350/2 if they are effectively getting a mid life upgrade / refurbishment, and in addition to Waterloo-Exeter and Salisbury locals, there is a strong case for same type of trains to work Portsmouth-Salisbury-Cardiff trains and Weymouth-Gloucester trains too. (Portsmouth-Redbridge, Patchway-Cardiff, and Weymouth-Dorchester junction, and most of Filton-Yate are already electrified), especially if Filton bank is also wired. Clearance work has already been done through Bath area (and extending wires through to need Dundas aqueduct would be simple).

In theory such a class if using 350/2 to get extra BEMU sets, then could also work Reading-Gatwick and Reading-Basingstoke/Bedwyn to free up other trains

Would probably allow around 110-130 (nearer 160 if Reading area too) DMU vehicles, (158, 159, 166) to be freed up for other services at cost of modifying some effectively underused EMUs

 

[Trainman40083]

If any DMUs are released, it would make sense to get any remaining 165s off the Oxford services with the surplus 168s and cascade a few 165s off to GWR.

Cascading 168s would just mean more fragmentation and GWR could use them to get rid of a few more 150s in the South West earlier than predicted.

I thought the Class 175s to GWR was seeing off the GWR Class 150s. Some as direct replacement, others by freeing up 158/166s to replace them.