15X Fleet State and Replacements?

[Jozhua]

Sorry if this is speculative, but I think the intended theme of this thread belongs in this sub-section.

I've just been thinking, been as the 15X fleets are celebrating their 30th/31st birthdays, that it is perhaps a good time to look at replacing them, especially as ordering new units has quite a long lead time, which makes sense due to trains being relatively specialist, expensive bits of kit.

You don't really want to be taking MU's much past 40, so replacing them before the end of the decade seems like a must. 153's are already on their way out and frankly 150/5/6's are looking pretty battered. 158's stand up okay interior-wise, but I have a feeling the reliability is similar.

I have a feeling that a mixture of cascades and new rolling stock will replace them, like with 170/1's on EMR. However, the issue with this is 17X's are more regional focused, with higher gearing ratios.

(SPECULATION WARNING)
What I think is needed is a fairly standardised fleet of Mk3 MU replacements, also replacing some of the ageing Mk3 EMU's a la 319. Electric, bi-mode and diesel variants can be made. Aiming for a top speed of around 90mph seems sensible, although as Vivarail's conjecture would have you believe 60 is plenty...
(/SPECULATION WARNING)

Of course the government will leave this until 2029 and be surprised when new trains aren't rolling off the production line 6 months later...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most 150s are at Northern, so a follow-on order of CAF stock would be a good way to replace them. Extending the existing CAF units may be a cheaper way - if you extend the 3s to 4 and the 2s to 3 you could run them mostly singly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If 156s can hold up structurally, they're still the ideal unit for many rural routes: 75mph is more than enough speed, they don't have the fuel consumption issues that 170s have at lower speeds, and (slightly ironically given they were built at Washwood Heath ) they seem to be pretty solid. If the mechanical side is a problem, a replacement drivetrain should be doable on a 23m carriage.

 

[NoMorePacers]

150s are just awful units and I don't think they can be saved at this rate. I'm surprised that the 153s are being replaced over them to be honest, given the latter units are probably better overall (apart from the single car issue).

The other Sprinters are fine for the next several years and I don't see them being replaced for a while (but that's the same for 150s really).

 

[irish_rail]

Be careful what you wish for. The replacement may well be awful looking at other brand new trains today. 150s aren't all bad.

 

[squizzler]

Bi-mode with provision to ditch the dinosaur-burner in future is a must, and their procurement should be done in conjunction with an aggressive programme of electrification so the performance under diesel can be low. I would however permit more intermediate cars in the already-ordered straight DMUs so they can handle a small residue of totally non-electric routes, or those needing more pep than bi-modes can provide under diesel.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If I'm honest, yes I'm a bit concerned about 15x trains continuing for some time. However, they must be reliable enough otherwise why else would they be being refurbished at Northern?

The only 75mph train I've caught in my 27-28 years of living on this planet (that I can recall) was a TfW service from Cardiff Central to Penarth on the 23/01/19 - 14:16 it was. I was on the 14:46 service.

 

[43096]

Most 150s are at Northern, so a follow-on order of CAF stock would be a good way to replace them. Extending the existing CAF units may be a cheaper way - if you extend the 3s to 4 and the 2s to 3 you could run them mostly singly.

That’s nowhere near enough: Northern have/will have 162 Class 150 cars; extending the 195s by a car only provides 58 extra vehicles.

I’m also not sure why you’d go back to CAF with their appalling build quality and customer service: they are not known as “Cheap As ****” across Europe for nothing.

 

[Meerkat]

I think they have to be bi-mode or at least DEMU ready to become EMU if we are taking the diesel ban seriously.
I would say Stadler now they have settled down but they aren’t made here, which is a political issue if the factories are running out of work.

 

[Tobbes]

I've no idea what they cost relative to the CAF units, but the Stadler FLIRTs that GA have introduced are lovely - a very impressive step up from the 153/156s.

 

[Meerkat]

I've no idea what they cost relative to the CAF units, but the Stadler FLIRTs that GA have introduced are lovely - a very impressive step up from the 153/156s.

But not made here, which is a problem when you have three or four factories to keep busy

 

[Tobbes]

Could be made here under licence?

 

[Meerkat]

Is there a workflow thread on here - keeping track of what orders the various factories have got and when the work runs out?

 

[43096]

But not made here, which is a problem when you have three or four factories to keep busy

We do not “have to” keep the factories busy, we should be buying the best value stock. The current number of assembly sites is unsustainable in the long term, just as it has been historically.

 

[Chester1]

150s are just awful units and I don't think they can be saved at this rate. I'm surprised that the 153s are being replaced over them to be honest, given the latter units are probably better overall (apart from the single car issue).

The other Sprinters are fine for the next several years and I don't see them being replaced for a while (but that's the same for 150s really).

That’s nowhere near enough: Northern have/will have 162 Class 150 cars; extending the 195s by a car only provides 58 extra vehicles.

I’m also not sure why you’d go back to CAF with their appalling build quality and customer service: they are not known as “Cheap As ****” across Europe for nothing.

150s need to be replaced by units that also have mid doors, which rules out cascaded DMUs. I think Northern should lease the 9 TFW 769s once they are finally entered service and eventually been replaced by new stock in 2023-24. They probably don't have suitable work for more than 17 x 769s. 150s are likely to stay until they are unserviceable.

153s will go soon and 155s and 156s can be replaced by cascaded stock. There are 50 x 158s going off lease plus 27 x 175s. Some 158s will need scrapping due to corrosion etc.

The rumours of battery 331 trials for Windermere services could be a big change. Battery 331s would work on CLC fast service and could be procured for Airport - Blackpool to allow interworking when necessary. If Modern Railways is to be believed each set requires a fourth coach built. The quality of 331s is OK and would be better than procuring another mini fleet.

 

[Meerkat]

We do not “have to” keep the factories busy, we should be buying the best value stock. The current number of assembly sites is unsustainable in the long term, just as it has been historically.

The best value might be paying a bit more for the stock and keeping more of the money spent in country. As long as you have competition between factories here you shouldn’t get too stiffed on prices.

 

[Anonymous10]

The best value might be paying a bit more for the stock and keeping more of the money spent in country. As long as you have competition between factories here you shouldn’t get too stiffed on prices.

And quality should remain steady

 

[Meerkat]

And quality should remain steady

Indeed - it falls apart when you get a single state factory who know they will get the orders, leading to low motivation to innovate or maintain quality and more motivation for unions to squeeze onerous wages and conditions.

 

[43096]

Indeed - it falls apart when you get a single state factory who know they will get the orders, leading to low motivation to innovate or maintain quality and more motivation for unions to squeeze onerous wages and conditions.

Instead we have three "domestic" (ha - one is headquartered in Germany, one in Spain, one in Japan) who are incapable of delivering: Bombardier can't get the trains into service, CAF have poor build quality and Hitachi couldn't care less about the customer's ability to deliver the service. All of them have been incapable of hitting delivery dates.

 

[43096]

The best value might be paying a bit more for the stock and keeping more of the money spent in country. As long as you have competition between factories here you shouldn’t get too stiffed on prices.

Any profits go elsewhere though and don't kid yourself that the UK is anything more than an assembly site - the high value and technology parts come from elsewhere.

 

[Meerkat]

Instead we have three "domestic" (ha - one is headquartered in Germany, one in Spain, one in Japan) who are incapable of delivering: Bombardier can't get the trains into service, CAF have poor build quality and Hitachi couldn't care less about the customer's ability to deliver the service. All of them have been incapable of hitting delivery dates.

But those issues are not related to the factories being in the UK though - they have similar issues with all their products don’t they?

Any profits go elsewhere though and don't kid yourself that the UK is anything more than an assembly site - the high value and technology parts come from elsewhere.

The wages stay here, the tax stays here, the skills stay here, and if the assembly line is here it gives local parts suppliers far more chance of getting work.

 

[43096]

But those issues are not related to the factories being in the UK though - they have similar issues with all their products don’t they?

So are those the sort of companies we should be buying from, then, if they are institutionally incapable of delivering?

The wages stay here, the tax stays here, the skills stay here, and if the assembly line is here it gives local parts suppliers far more chance of getting work.

I'd debate the skills bit. The real skills are located elsewhere. As for the suppliers, the high value stuff (traction equipment etc) comes from elsewhere and that won't change.

Historically, for the last 15 years or so, the UK has been barely capable of supporting one domestic train assembly site, let alone 3 or more. The recent boom in orders has seen the manufacturers pile in just in time for the boom to finish. With a global recession now inevitable, and who-knows-what impact on travel patterns as a result of the COVID-19 fiasco and a surplus of modern EMUs, I wouldn't be betting on there being many big new train orders. HS2 is the probable exception, but that will be going to just one builder/consortium.

 

[Anonymous10]

So are those the sort of companies we should be buying from, then, if they are institutionally incapable of delivering?


I'd debate the skills bit. The real skills are located elsewhere. As for the suppliers, the high value stuff (traction equipment etc) comes from elsewhere and that won't change.

Historically, for the last 15 years or so, the UK has been barely capable of supporting one domestic train assembly site, let alone 3 or more. The recent boom in orders has seen the manufacturers pile in just in time for the boom to finish. With a global recession now inevitable, and who-knows-what impact on travel patterns as a result of the COVID-19 fiasco and a surplus of modern EMUs, I wouldn't be betting on there being many big new train orders. HS2 is the probable exception, but that will be going to just one builder/consortium.

The 150 fleet is coming to the end of its fleet that will be a large order beyond that I agree there won't be many

 

[Meerkat]

So are those the sort of companies we should be buying from, then, if they are institutionally incapable of delivering?

Stadler haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory on the product introduction front

With a global recession now inevitable, and who-knows-what impact on travel patterns as a result of the COVID-19 fiasco and a surplus of modern EMUs, I wouldn't be betting on there being many big new train orders.

There are more likely to be new trains if buying them keeps a UK assembly plant open.

 

[tbtc]

Aiming for a top speed of around 90mph seems sensible, although as Vivarail's conjecture would have you believe 60 is plenty...

Of the services currently operated by 150s a significant amount of the time (i.e. ignoring the handful of routes/diagrams where they have occasionally been pressed into service), how many of them have much running above 60mph away from the wires? And how many of those services have scope for being sped up to 90mph?

Higher top speed for DMUs generally comes at the expense of acceleration (or fuel efficiency, in the case of Voyagers) - and most of the routes run by 150s are where better acceleration is a bigger priority.

Especially as we have a number of 90/100mph DMUs coming onto the second-hand market soon (the entire EMT fleet of 158s, some of the TPE 185s, the entire class of 175s).

Too early to decide on 150 replacement until we know what battery/hybrid technology looks like - maybe in another five years we'll have cobbled something together that's better than a 769 (because a four coach service capable of doing 100mph under the wires and 75mph away from the wires would be fine for the kind of routes 150s operate on.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love 150s - I find the toaster rack seats pretty horrible - low down and three abreast - but we just need a simple basic train to replace them (although I am looking forward to the threads in five years time along the lines of "My Suggestion For Future Uses For The 150s" )

 

[43096]

Stadler haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory on the product introduction front.

True, but as a "first time" in the UK market they have done substantially better than Bombardier (the resident UK builder with years of experience) who still haven't got a single train into use on Greater Anglia.

 

[JonathanH]

Logically, another way to eliminate 15x units is to look at routes elsewhere which have high demand or frequency where freeing up the existing DMUs might help the BCR of what might otherwise be marginal electrification proposals - eg the 172s on Birmingham Snow Hill locals, 165s at Chiltern, 170s in Fife.

Some 158s will need scrapping due to corrosion etc.

Aren't they mainly constructed of aluminium rather than steel?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

158s are mostly aluminium, but the corrosion issue is regarding the welding. AIUI in the late 1980s BR planned to life-extend the class 108s (IIRC) as they were less rusty than the 101s due to being aluminium... until it was discovered that the welds had deteriorated so badly that the bodyshells weren't structurally sound.

 

[Mikey C]

Logically, another way to eliminate 15x units is to look at routes elsewhere which have high demand or frequency where freeing up the existing DMUs might help the BCR of what might otherwise be marginal electrification proposals - eg the 172s on Birmingham Snow Hill locals, 165s at Chiltern, 170s in Fife.



Aren't they mainly constructed of aluminium rather than steel?

The 165s are quite "fat", will they fit the Northern Routes?

 

[JonathanH]

The 165s are quite "fat", will they fit the Northern Routes?

The GWR fleet had ride height modifications to enable it to work over additional routes. 166s now go to Brighton along the south coast. There are ways of making rolling stock fit most routes (although I accept there may be places they don't fit).