Class 175 future speculation

[Philip]

No Chiltern stock is gangwayed and almost all trains are formed of more than one unit. It really doesn't make any difference on mostly-DOO commuter trains, people board in their usual place and stay there, hardly anyone walks through.

Class 168s are formed of a mixture of 3, 4 and 5 coach trains which is more suitable for the mainline than 2 or 3 coach 175s; to maintain capacity you would need pretty much every 175 running in multiple, whereas with the 168s only the 3-car units and maybe a small handful of 4-car units would need to run in multiple.
If they were replacing HSTs or Sprinters then it would be more logical but by replacing Turbostars it means a new round of unit training for the guards and drivers to learn arguably an inferior unit, at least mechanically.

 

[Energy]

Class 168s are formed of a mixture of 3, 4 and 5 coach trains

Nope, 2, 3 and 4. Occasionally a rumour of reforming them all to 3 car.

which is more suitable for the mainline than 2 or 3 coach 175s

They are more suitable but with 165 spares being more difficult to find they wouldn't be a bad fit.

If they were replacing HSTs or Sprinters then it would be logical but by replacing Turbostars it means a new round of unit training for the guards and drivers to learn arguably an inferior unit, at least mechanically.

Training is a fair point.

Ie instead go to Gwr and not to Chiltern as rumoured, because Gwr might quite well realise getting rid of all the Castle hsts will see itself short or a little short on some services especially off peak and weekends as leisure travellers who are travelling are higher than pre covid. and with the demise of 769 no extra turbos are viable either.

GWR have enough spare 80x units for now to cover the loss of castle HSTs. Given their experience with 180s I doubt management will be too interested in 175s. Further growth would be done with their new train tender.

Unless maybe split across both franchises maybe?

Its not really a big enough fleet to be split.

 

[BayPaul]

If they went to Chiltern, I could see the logic of them displacing the loco hauled and some of the 168s, which could then be converted to 170s, which have a multitude of potential homes - Northern, EMR, XC, Scotrail or even Southern.

 

[Anvil1984]

If they went to Chiltern, I could see the logic of them displacing the loco hauled and some of the 168s, which could then be converted to 170s, which have a multitude of potential homes - Northern, EMR, XC, Scotrail or even Southern.

I’ve got the urge to let my inner crayonista out (if you can’t beat them…) I know the maths won’t work but let’s have some fun

TfW 175s to replace Chiltern 168s
EMR 180s to replace Chiltern LCHS
Upgraded depot with extra fire fighting facilities to house the above but majority of the Coradia fleet in one place.
If I was being extra fruity make GC a good offer to sub some 222s for their 180s so Chiltern have a couple of spares, they’ll need them. Crofton has 222 experience and GC seem to have moved from Heaton to Tyne Yard so more 22xs there
EMR to keep some 222s to offset the 180s
Chiltern 168s to be rebadged (re-rebadged in a couple of cases) as 170s and sent to EMR giving them an all 170 local fleet without needing the Southern 171s
EMR and the majority of TfW 158s to Northern to displace 155s (158/9x series to Hull) and quite a few of the 156s. (150s will probably outlive 156s due to the suburban layout)
A small number of 158s from TfW to GWR to move some 165s to Chiltern to sub for any 168 duties on the Marylebone to Aylesbury routes

New design of sprinter replacements of differing carriage length and number of carriages, first dibs to GWR and then Northern

Yes I’ve had some margaritas and done absolutely none of the sums. Now rip it apart

 

[Energy]

TfW 175s to replace Chiltern 168s

Reasonable so far...

EMR 180s to replace Chiltern LCHS

Chiltern doesn't need intercity stock, it only took on loco hauled because it was available.

If I was being extra fruity make GC a good offer to sub some 222s for their 180s so Chiltern have a couple of spares, they’ll need them. Crofton has 222 experience and GC seem to have moved from Heaton to Tyne Yard so more 22xs there

GC would have to make a significant investment in staff training, it wouldn't happen without a track access arrangement extension and then new build 802s would make more sense. Chiltern won't need 14 180s !

EMR to keep some 222s to offset the 180s

The added 180s would have only been a few peak services a day iirc. Using up the 360s once more is electrified would be the solution long term and for now short forming a couple services (a single 810 already has more standard class than a 7 car 222).

Chiltern 168s to be rebadged (re-rebadged in a couple of cases) as 170s and sent to EMR giving them an all 170 local fleet without needing the Southern 171s

Not a bad idea, EMR having a single fleet for regional would be nice. 170s are compatible with 158s so its not too much of a problem right now. Southern are only losing some of their 171s.

EMR and the majority of TfW 158s to Northern to displace 155s (158/9x series to Hull) and quite a few of the 156s. (150s will probably outlive 156s due to the suburban layout)

As 155/156 replacements they aren't bad, they don't have the fastest doors though.

New design of sprinter replacements of differing carriage length and number of carriages, first dibs to GWR and then Northern

GWR are working on a specification already (Project Churchill). Northern would be more civity.

 

[Anvil1984]

Reasonable so far...

Chiltern doesn't need intercity stock, it only took on loco hauled because it was available.

GC would have to make a significant investment in staff training, it wouldn't happen without a track access arrangement extension and then new build 802s would make more sense. Chiltern won't need 14 180s !

The added 180s would have only been a few peak services a day iirc. Using up the 360s once more is electrified would be the solution long term and for now short forming a couple services (a single 810 already has more standard class than a 7 car 222).

Not a bad idea, EMR having a single fleet for regional would be nice. 170s are compatible with 158s so its not too much of a problem right now. Southern are only losing some of their 171s.

As 155/156 replacements they aren't bad, they don't have the fastest doors though.

GWR are working on a specification already (Project Churchill). Northern would be more civity.

As I said.. Margaritas

On the Northern side. With a few routes the door cycle time can be offset a bit with the better braking / acceleration curves. Also on a few of the diagrams the higher top speed could also offset that (looking at the Carlisle /Newcastle- Morpeth / Chathills and the Hull to Leeds / Halifax / York in particular but a 158 would be superior as they could get to 90 mph on stretches (and some of the above services already see some 158 use)

If we can bin some units and not need the 180s and extra 222s great (I was just accounting for thermal incidents whilst standardising stock). No doubt Northern will look to standardise on the CAF side to reduce parts. But where’s the fun in that

With GC I agree that something like the 802 probably make sense but would they go for what makes sense or what they can get their hands on for the cheapest price. I just have the opinion with GC it would be the latter sadly (or stick with what they have for as long as they can get away with it) The reason I went 222 and not 221 was just that a few of the stations would need SDO. Again maintenance staff would be mostly fine (with small conversion for Tyne Yard and a reminder for Heaton). Traincrew would need retrained whatever we sent their way

 

[Energy]

As I said.. Margaritas

The reason I went 222 and not 221 was just that a few of the stations would need SDO

222s are at least partially cleared due to their time at Hull Trains as well.

 

[Mikey C]

If I was going to propose a stock shift

175s to Chiltern to replace the loco stock and some longer distance 168 services
Those displaced 168s used to replace the 165s used on the Chiltern Mainline stoppers, thus removing 75mph trains from what is otherwise a 100mph railway
165s kept for the via Amersham services
The rest of the 165s sent to GWR to operate in the west country, in lieu of the GWR 165s that should have been displaced by the 769s.

 

[Flinn Reed]

If I was going to propose a stock shift

175s to Chiltern to replace the loco stock and some longer distance 168 services
Those displaced 168s used to replace the 165s used on the Chiltern Mainline stoppers, thus removing 75mph trains from what is otherwise a 100mph railway
165s kept for the via Amersham services
The rest of the 165s sent to GWR to operate in the west country, in lieu of the GWR 165s that should have been displaced by the 769s.

Would the numbers add up to simplify further to a fully 168 and 175 fleet? 168s can work on the Amersham route if there are enough.

 

[JonathanH]

Would the numbers add up to simplify further to a fully 168 and 175 fleet? 168s can work on the Amersham route if there are enough.

No, there are 39 165s and only 27 175s. Vehicle numbers are 89 165 vehicles and 70 175 vehicles. Not sure the cuts will go that far.

 

[Mikey C]

And slow accelerating 100mph 168s wouldn't suit the 75mph Amersham route that well either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And slow accelerating 100mph 168s wouldn't suit the 75mph Amersham route that well either.

168s are sometimes used on the Amersham route. It's so dawdly, pedestrian and slow that you could probably use a three-car on one engine and not lose time. An hour and five minutes to do what is analogous to a Tring stopper (45 minutes ish).

 

[SuperLuke2334]

175011 reported to be in the refurbished / upgraded sidings at Holyhead. Potential beginning of withdrawal / warm storage?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Crofton has 222 experience

Not sure that's something you want to repeat...

 

[Anvil1984]

Not sure that's something you want to repeat...

Things were hazy the evening I made that list. Throw away logic and memory and bring out my crayons. Just wait til the 185 thread follow up

 

[Philip]

When did 175s fully take over the South Wales services? Did they ever operate to both Milford Haven and Blackpool/Windermere/Barrow within the same day or week?

 

[43102EMR]

When did 175s fully take over the South Wales services? Did they ever operate to both Milford Haven and Blackpool/Windermere/Barrow within the same day or week?

Circa 2007/8 when Arriva had exclusive usage of the fleet and no longer had to sublease them to TPE.

 

[Philip]

Currently on one between Manchester and Chester for the first time in years. I'm sure the 197s will be good workhorses for many years along here, but it's a shame the 175s will soon be gone from this route; they've been the mainstay of this route for over 20 years and together with the North Wales line the only route they've consistently been used on since new. Still preferred the FNW interior and livery with the quirky names but the recent refurbishment has been very professional and they remain comfy to travel on, although the ride quality isn't good.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Currently on one between Manchester and Chester for the first time in years. I'm sure the 197s will be good workhorses for many years along here, but it's a shame the 175s will soon be gone from this route; they've been the mainstay of this route for over 20 years and together with the North Wales line the only route they've consistently been used on since new. Still preferred the FNW interior and livery with the quirky names but the recent refurbishment has been very professional and they remain comfy to travel on, although the ride quality isn't good.

Indeed. Also the seats are too reclined and the armrests are too low, and they all still smell of urine. Cannot wait to see the back of them.

 

[JonathanH]

A suggestion in another thread that the 175s are likely to go for scrap.

If DfT will not allow TOCs to take on cascaded stock, they will be sent off to storage, followed by a one way trip to Newport. As it stands, 175s are likely to be heading in that direction as the ROSCO has tried to see if there is any interest, and they have had several rejections. GWR may get some ex TfW 150s. XC may get some cascaded 221s. But if the DfT doesn't sanction it, we could see Ex TfW 150s, 175s, Ex EMR 222s and Ex AWC 221s head for scrap, as the ROSCOs will not keep them in warm storage for a long period.

...and in another thread, a suggestion that their significant corrosion problems are likely to lead to their demise.

 

[Philip]

A suggestion in another thread that the 175s are likely to go for scrap.

They could of course be sold to a different country if none of the UK-based TOCs are interested.

 

[JonathanH]

They could of course be sold to a different country if none of the UK-based TOCs are interested.

That seems really unlikely. Who would want 27 corroded diesel units?

 

[zwk500]

They could of course be sold to a different country if none of the UK-based TOCs are interested.

You can try, but somebody needs to be billing to buy in order for a sale to happen.

 

[Philip]

That seems really unlikely. Who would want 27 corroded diesel units?

You can try, but somebody needs to be billing to buy in order for a sale to happen.

India? USA? Australia? Any country's railway system which is prepared to spend the money to repair the corrosion could otherwise potentially get themselves a bargain if DfT are prepared to sell on the cheap to avoid scrapping. Most trains have a lifespan of around 40 years so if these have the corrosion repaired then you could possibly get another 20 years out of them.

 

[JonathanH]

DfT are prepared to sell on the cheap

Huh? The DfT don't own them, and foreign railways don't tend to buy our old trains.

 

[Philip]

Huh? The DfT don't own them, and foreign railways don't tend to buy our old trains.

The ROSCO then, Angel Trains or whoever it is now.

 

[zwk500]

India? USA? Australia? Any country's railway system which is prepared to spend the money to repair the corrosion could otherwise potentially get themselves a bargain if DfT are prepared to sell on the cheap to avoid scrapping. Most trains have a lifespan of around 40 years so if these have the corrosion repaired then you could possibly get another 20 years out of them.

India uses a different track gauge, US doesn't have any services short enough for these units fuel tanks to use and even if you bought them cheap you'd have to ship them halfway round to world to Australia. That's before you get to Australia's own vast distances and 3 different track gauges.
Why is scrapping them such a bad thing if nobody needs them any more?

 

[craigybagel]

India?

Wrong gauge

USA?

Won't meet crash standards

Australia?

Only NSW is the right gauge and they have little need for a unit like a 175.

Any country's railway system which is prepared to spend the money to repair the corrosion could otherwise potentially get themselves a bargain if DfT are prepared to sell on the cheap to avoid scrapping. Most trains have a lifespan of around 40 years so if these have the corrosion repaired then you could possibly get another 20 years out of them.

Would need to be one hell of a bargain.....

 

[Philip]

India uses a different track gauge, US doesn't have any services short enough for these units fuel tanks to use and even if you bought them cheap you'd have to ship them halfway round to world to Australia. That's before you get to Australia's own vast distances and 3 different track gauges.
Why is scrapping them such a bad thing if nobody needs them any more?

Aside from the corrosion problems they are good solid trains so it seems rather a waste in scrapping them half way through the typical unit lifespan. Various other TOCs will be replacing Sprinters and LHCS sets within the next decade and 175s (along with cascaded 170s and 185s) would be a good replacement because they're modern and it'd save having to order another new fleet of DMUs. Battery technology isn't good enough yet for many routes and many secondary lines won't be electrified for decades yet.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A suggestion in another thread that the 175s are likely to go for scrap..

Aside from the corrosion problems they are good solid trains so it seems rather a waste in scrapping them half way through the typical unit lifespan.

Absolutely, assuming the corrosion problems are fixable (and I seem to recall some comments that some fairly bad corrosion was repaired on 150s when they went for PRM-DDA/RVAR/whatever-you-want-to-call-it work, but then again wouldn't the 175s have already had the corroison repaired when they went for the TfW refurb/refresh?) then it'd be rather wasteful to scrap the 175s. Particularly given this comment above:

GWR may get some ex TfW 150s. XC may get some cascaded 221s.

If much-older (and less comfortable / lower spec) class 150s are to have another use after TfW, why the hell wouldn't the 175s also be kept going?

Various other TOCs will be replacing Sprinters and LHCS sets within the next decade and 175s (along with cascaded 170s and 185s) would be a good replacement because they're modern and it'd save having to order another new fleet of DMUs. Battery technology isn't good enough yet for many routes and many secondary lines won't be electrified for decades yet.

More good points there - we have way too many Civity DMUs as it is to make a rational net-zero railway by 2050 and the 175s are way more-modern than Super-Sprinters so could be a good way of modernising services by providing features such as air-conditioning. The biggest problem is the lack of end gangways on the 175s but that can be worked around by using them where the present trains are only 2/3 coaches or aren't gangwayed throughout anyway (eg. Cardiff-Portsmouth vice Turbos, Cardiff-Nottingham* vice Turbostars, Manchester-Cleethorpes vice 185s or one of Northern's faster, long-distance, routes vice 195s (with said 195s cascaded to Manchester-Livervice via Warrrington Central to replace 150s)

* although in this case I think 5-car 222s (with 1st class removed or reduced to just a small section like the 170s have) would make more sense since XC could also use 7-car 222s on their Voyager routes whereas the 175s would be a oddball microfleet for just one route on XC

Who would want 27 corroded diesel units?

If they weren't corroded, and possibly if you replaced the seats (some of which, last time I actually managed to get a seat on a 175, seem to have worn out) with good ones** passengers in quite a few areas in the UK I would suggest. It would have been extremely hard to get approved even before the current international financial woes, but fit them with end gangways and ETCS equipment and I doubt I would be the only one who would want them on the Cambrian lines instead of 197s. Many summers ago, when the air-con on the 158s packed up but the 175s were still like fridges, I would probably have wanted 175s instead of 158s too but I don't think that one's as clear-cut now.

** not new ones (since, in that case, the 'bean-counters' would choose rocks from Fainsa) but the best you can find out of something going off lease