Class 175 future speculation

[HSTEd]

Could you reform the three car sets into a mix of four and two car sets?

 

[tomuk]

Could you reform the three car sets into a mix of four and two car sets?

There are 11 x 2 car and 16 x 3 car so you could reform them to 8 x4 car and 19 x 2 car.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

On the contrary, wouldn't almost all trains on the main line have such couplers if the 175s came over?

Sorry - blind spot on the IETs!

 

[JonathanH]

Sorry - blind spot on the IETs!

Yes, and Voyagers! However, I have no idea about the coupler height on the three types of train for a mechanical coupling in a rescue situation.

 

[Philip]

You're not making any sense. There's a clear indication in the Chiltern business plan document about 175s going to Chiltern. As for getting rid of 165s or 168s, all it says is "the Operator shall introduce a HyDrive fleet fitment programme in respect of all the Class 165 units comprised in the Train Fleet": there is no indication of what the size of each fleet will be. You cannot assume the fleets are as now; the DfT has the right under the current contracts to move stock around as it sees fit by directing operators to do so.

Hardly. There is no clear indication about 175s going to Chiltern, it is a brief mention at the end saying 'any class 175s which are part of the franchise at the time', which reads that they have not made a decision and it's an option that they're considering. On the other hand there are multiple references in the report to class 165s and 168s being a part of the future franchise. There is no logical reason to replace 168s with 175s on the Chiltern mainline and all the extra crew training and unit modifying costs that this will incur - the former have served the route for many years and are popular and well suited to the route.

 

[43096]

There is no logical reason to replace 168s with 175s on the Chiltern mainline and all the extra crew training and unit modifying costs that this will incur - the former have served the route for many years and are popular and well suited to the route.

There is if the Turbostars are better used elsewhere.

 

[Philip]

There is if the Turbostars are better used elsewhere.

Well you could just as much argue the 175s are better used elsewhere. A lot can happen but I think the clear indication at present from the DfT report for Chiltern future is that they currently see 165s and 168s as part of the future of the franchise and that some 175s are being considered as possible replacements for LHCS.

 

[GWVillager]

There's downsides too to GWR use. They're not gangwayed throughout (as a 158 is), so a 4 or 5 car formation would need traincrew swapping between sets. Would RMT 'do a 360' and demand multiple crew? Additionally they can't work in multiple with anything else and I don't know anything else in the West with Scharfenberg couplers, in case of breakdown.

Most of the services mentioned have non-gangwayed 165/166s now. Even when it was 158s they rarely doubled up though. As for breakdowns, it’s a similar situation in Wales yet they manage fine.

 

[mmh]

There's downsides too to GWR use. They're not gangwayed throughout (as a 158 is), so a 4 or 5 car formation would need traincrew swapping between sets. Would RMT 'do a 360' and demand multiple crew? Additionally they can't work in multiple with anything else and I don't know anything else in the West with Scharfenberg couplers, in case of breakdown.

None of these "problems" have prevented them being used successfully for 20 years. GWR already have many, many trains which can't work in multiple with any other type (or at all, for some!)

 

[patrick.hearn3]

Most of the services mentioned have non-gangwayed 165/166s now. Even when it was 158s they rarely doubled up though. As for breakdowns, it’s a similar situation in Wales yet they manage fine.

As I understand it it's speculated that 175s would work in multiple (2+2, 2+3) to replace HSTs, where non-corridor is at least a consideration

As it happens before Covid-19 it wasn't unusual to see GW 158s in multiple with other 15x around my way (Bristol).

If you were to require units regularly to work in multiple to provide 4 or 5 car trains (and until traffic levels stabilise, one doesn't know) then 158s' corridors would IMO make them more suitable than 165/6 or 175.

None of these "problems" have prevented them being used successfully for 20 years. GWR already have many, many trains which can't work in multiple with any other type (or at all, for some!)

(I didn't say "problems")

Don't get me wrong, if 175s turned up they'd do a job. Their use up till now though hasn't mixed them on the same way. For GW's regional services having more 158s instead of 175s offers more flexibility than a fleet where 15x, 16x and 175 aren't compatible.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is no logical reason to replace 168s with 175s on the Chiltern mainline and all the extra crew training and unit modifying costs that this will incur - the former have served the route for many years and are popular and well suited to the route.

There's certainly no logical reason for Chiltern to replace all the 168s with 175s, but given the similarity between 168s and 170s (indeed the nine ex-TPE units were 170s originally, what is involved in converting between the two types?) it seems more logical to split the 168s up between different maintainers than to so-split the 175s.

According to Wikipedia Chiltern has 8 class 68s and 6 DVTs. Two of those 68s are the DRS blue ones and I assume that one DVT is a spare giving five sets of coaches. Thus Chiltern currently has the following available for Mainline services:

• 5x 6-car mark 3 (30 vehicles, excluding DVTs)
• 10x 4-car class 168 (40 vehicles)
• 9x 3-car class 168 (27 vehicles)
• 9x 2-car class 168 (18 vehicles)

This is a total of 115 carriages. If Chiltern were to introduce all the 175s (the primary reason for doing so being to remove the class 68s due to their unpopularity with the council), they could have the option of standardising on 4-car 168s and cascade the rest elsewhere, this would reduce the fleet to 110 vehicles as follows with the option of running the 175s in pairs as 4, 5 or 6 coach services:

• 10x 4-car class 168 (40 vehicles)
• 16x 3-car class 175 (48 vehicles)
• 11x 2-car class 175 (22 vehicles)

As I understand it it's speculated that 175s would work in multiple (2+2, 2+3) to replace HSTs, where non-corridor is at least a consideration

As it happens before Covid-19 it wasn't unusual to see GW 158s in multiple with other 15x around my way (Bristol).

If you were to require units regularly to work in multiple to provide 4 or 5 car trains (and until traffic levels stabilise, one doesn't know) then 158s' corridors would IMO make them more suitable than 165/6 or 175.

Indeed, 158s would be a better replacement for a Castle HST in that regard. However, were the 175s to be cascaded to GWR I would argue that they should be deployed on Cardiff-Portsmouth where 158s and HSTs are not an option because GWR do not quite have enough 158s to provide a 5-car service and HSTs are out of guage. I understand that GWR have 43 class 158 vehicles and the 175s would be 70 vehicles so should be able to provide a 5-car service on CDF-PMH which could otherwise only be delivered using even less suitable 166s/165s.

Don't get me wrong, if 175s turned up they'd do a job. Their use up till now though hasn't mixed them on the same way. For GW's regional services having more 158s instead of 175s offers more flexibility than a fleet where 15x, 16x and 175 aren't compatible.

Fair point, if GWR could get more 158s that would probably be a better solution for GWR than the 175s, but keeping the 175s together minimises incompatiblity issues compared to spliting them between regions. If GBR can break down the walls between the franchise silos and allow traincrew and rolling stock depots to be shared then things would be easier I think - for example before IEP Landore was a GWR depot and ATW stock had to go to Carmarthen/Cardiff - if the 175s (and crews to work them) could be based in Swansea it would eliminate issues with CAF taking over Chester depot and make it easier for TfW to keep the 175s on the Swansea-Manchester run.

 

[GWVillager]

According to Wikipedia Chiltern has 8 class 68s and 6 DVTs. Two of those 68s are the DRS blue ones and I assume that one DVT is a spare giving five sets of coaches.

Two of the DVTs are spare, there are only four full sets available, with three usually diagrammed a day.

Fair point, if GWR could get more 158s that would probably be a better solution for GWR than the 175s, but keeping the 175s together minimises incompatiblity issues compared to spliting them between regions. If GBR can break down the walls between the franchise silos and allow traincrew and rolling stock depots to be shared then things would be easier I think - for example before IEP Landore was a GWR depot and ATW stock had to go to Carmarthen/Cardiff - if the 175s (and crews to work them) could be based in Swansea it would eliminate issues with CAF taking over Chester depot and make it easier for TfW to keep the 175s on the Swansea-Manchester run.

Why would they be retained on Swansea-Manchester?

 

[Philip]

There's certainly no logical reason for Chiltern to replace all the 168s with 175s, but given the similarity between 168s and 170s (indeed the nine ex-TPE units were 170s originally, what is involved in converting between the two types?) it seems more logical to split the 168s up between different maintainers than to so-split the 175s.

According to Wikipedia Chiltern has 8 class 68s and 6 DVTs. Two of those 68s are the DRS blue ones and I assume that one DVT is a spare giving five sets of coaches. Thus Chiltern currently has the following available for Mainline services:

• 5x 6-car mark 3 (30 vehicles, excluding DVTs)
• 10x 4-car class 168 (40 vehicles)
• 9x 3-car class 168 (27 vehicles)
• 9x 2-car class 168 (18 vehicles)

This is a total of 115 carriages. If Chiltern were to introduce all the 175s (the primary reason for doing so being to remove the class 68s due to their unpopularity with the council), they could have the option of standardising on 4-car 168s and cascade the rest elsewhere, this would reduce the fleet to 110 vehicles as follows with the option of running the 175s in pairs as 4, 5 or 6 coach services:

• 10x 4-car class 168 (40 vehicles)
• 16x 3-car class 175 (48 vehicles)
• 11x 2-car class 175 (22 vehicles)

Fair point, if GWR could get more 158s that would probably be a better solution for GWR than the 175s, but keeping the 175s together minimises incompatiblity issues compared to spliting them between regions. If GBR can break down the walls between the franchise silos and allow traincrew and rolling stock depots to be shared then things would be easier I think - for example before IEP Landore was a GWR depot and ATW stock had to go to Carmarthen/Cardiff - if the 175s (and crews to work them) could be based in Swansea it would eliminate issues with CAF taking over Chester depot and make it easier for TfW to keep the 175s on the Swansea-Manchester run.

Class 175s won't be staying on Swansea to Manchester services though, these will be worked by 197s and mk4 LHCS.

With so few Chiltern LHCS to cascade (if they are cascaded them at all), I think it is more likely that they will use their existing DMU stock to cover for the loss of coaching stock in order to cut costs, and to try and stretch the 168s a bit across the extra diagrams by reforming them all into 3-coach units. If overcrowding becomes a problem then perhaps there'll be an option for additional units in the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference between a 168 and a 170 is the coupler pinout, other than the first few 168s which had a different, more 165-like cab.

170s have couplers compatible with 15x, 168s have couplers compatible with 16x.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

How much longer would 6-car 175's (double sets of 3 coaches) be on the Portsmouth route compared to the 5-car Turbos?

Ideally, more refurbished 158's where possible would be the most ideal as they're gangwayed throughout which means less staff required.

 

[mmh]

How much longer would 6-car 175's (double sets of 3 coaches) be on the Portsmouth route compared to the 5-car Turbos?

Ideally, more refurbished 158's where possible would be the most ideal as they're gangwayed throughout which means less staff required.

There are countless examples of non-gangwayed units running in multiple without additional staff. Including all 175s in multiple right now. There are countless examples of driver only services. The lack of a gangway is a slight nuisance to passengers in relatively rare circumstances. I don't imagine on the whole staff or a TOC's management particularly care if there is one or not.

 

[JonathanH]

How much longer would 6-car 175's (double sets of 3 coaches) be on the Portsmouth route compared to the 5-car Turbos?

Another 23 metres - they are both trains with 23 metre coach lengths.

 

[craigybagel]

Why would they be retained on Swansea-Manchester?

Certain posters enjoy coming up with various scenarios that would see the 158s and/or 175s kept at TfW instead of 197s. They're nothing if not consistent - but it's been pointed out many many times that it's not happening.

 

[warwickshire]

Interesting post from the Gwr 769 thread reference to Northern looking to replace the 769 on Northern by another op.. Post 1860.
Could it be possible for the 175 to replace them when they become surplus. Maybe on the 769 routes themselves or another route to release 150 156 to replace the 769.
However could Northern get 175 to replace the 769s? Some shape or form?

 

[Neptune]

Interesting post from the Gwr 769 thread reference to Northern looking to replace the 769 on Northern by another op.. Post 1860.
Could it be possible for the 175 to replace them when they become surplus. Maybe on the 769 routes themselves or another route to release 150 156 to replace the 769.
However could Northern get 175 to replace the 769s? Some shape or form?

Pure speculation. Northern are unhappy with the reliability of the 769’s but nowhere have they said they are looking to get rid of them.

 

[JonathanH]

Pure speculation. Northern are unhappy with the reliability of the 769’s but nowhere have they said they are looking to get rid of them.

More to the point, if they were getting rid of the 769s, the DfT could easily order than the replacements need to come from different utilisation of the existing rolling stock Northern have / are already due to be getting - eg EMR 156s.

 

[IanXC]

Pure speculation. Northern are unhappy with the reliability of the 769’s but nowhere have they said they are looking to get rid of them.

175s to replace the North East fleet, with 158s (and possibly 156s) replacing 150s in Yorkshire and the North West seems entirely plausible.

 

[Neptune]

175s to replace the North East fleet, with 158s (and possibly 156s) replacing 150s in Yorkshire and the North West seems entirely plausible.

Mentioned before. How can 27 units be used on 46 diagrams.

 

[LOL The Irony]

175s to replace the North East fleet, with 158s (and possibly 156s) replacing 150s in Yorkshire and the North West seems entirely plausible.

You guys can keep the 158s. Y' took 'em, y' keep 'em.

 

[43102EMR]

175s to replace the North East fleet, with 158s (and possibly 156s) replacing 150s in Yorkshire and the North West seems entirely plausible.

DfT documentation seems to suggest some will end up with Chiltern.

 

[Philip]

DfT documentation seems to suggest some will end up with Chiltern.

If only some move there then it's a logical conclusion to think the rest could go to Northern.

 

[Energy]

If only some move there then it's a logical conclusion to think the rest could go to Northern.

No it wouldn't? The problem with sending them all to Northern is that it is too small a fleet to replace an entire fleet so Northern will gain another completely different fleet of trains. Splitting them between Chiltern and Northern just makes it worse, Chiltern could have all of them.

 

[Philip]

No it wouldn't? The problem with sending them all to Northern is that it is too small a fleet to replace an entire fleet so Northern will gain another completely different fleet of trains. Splitting them between Chiltern and Northern just makes it worse, Chiltern could have all of them.

They can't all go to Chiltern unless Chiltern get rid of some 165s or 168s and there's been no suggestion of this up to this point.

 

[LOL The Irony]

They can't all go to Chiltern unless Chiltern get rid of some 165s or 168s and there's been no suggestion of this up to this point.

I think the idea is to replace the 68s.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the idea is to replace the 68s.

70 175 vehicles to replace 24 Mark 3s is overkill on any scale, particularly as the Mark 3s dont exactly work intensive diagrams.