Class 175 future speculation

[RobShipway]

This may not be a fair comparison, but if GoVIA-Thameslink for it's Southern franchise can take corroded class 313 units, which even at the time where pretty much life expired and just have the seats changed to be 2+", rather than the 2+3 they where built with, then why can't one of the train operators take on using the corroded class 175 units.

If they don'y go to Chiltern to replace the LHCR trains or GWR to replace the turbos on routes like Cardiff - Portsmouth, then maybe they could go to Northern to be replacing class 150 units doing routes like Cleethorpes - Sheffield?

Failing that, TFW may change their mind and have the class 175 units replace their class 158 units and those possibly go on to part replace the class 150, 153, 158 units alongside the class 197.

 

[craigybagel]

If they don'y go to Chiltern to replace the LHCR trains or GWR to replace the turbos on routes like Cardiff - Portsmouth, then maybe they could go to Northern to be replacing class 150 units doing routes like Cleethorpes - Sheffield?

There's no way the current DfT will sign off on the costs of newer traction replacing Sprinters at a heavily subsidised TOC like Northern, especially on routes like that which are only kept open to ease the paperwork.

Failing that, TFW may change their mind and have the class 175 units replace their class 158 units and those possibly go on to part replace the class 150, 153, 158 units alongside the class 197.

Not going to happen. TfW have no desire nor need to hold on to either 158s or 197s.

 

[Rich McLean]

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?

Because crewes already sign them and they are on GWRs safety case. They can pretty much go straight into servicce at minimal cost, where 175s, depot staff have to learn them as well as training up all instructors, managers and crew. The DfT are looking at the bottom line

 

[Philip]

I'm a bit surprised some units seem to have already been removed from service at this point as I thought TfW wanted to use them to replace departing 170s and strengthen Marches services until they have enough 197s and Flirts.

 

[craigybagel]

This may not be a fair comparison, but if GoVIA-Thameslink for it's Southern franchise can take corroded class 313 units, which even at the time where pretty much life expired and just have the seats changed to be 2+", rather than the 2+3 they where built with, then why can't one of the train operators take on using the corroded class 175 units.

Also, Southern taking on 313s had an obvious benefit - it released 377s from the Coastwat to increase capacity in London. It was very obviously worth the cost. There is no easy obvious use for the 175s - the DfT won't pay to increase capacity, and in their eyes there isn't any life expired stock the 175s can replace.

Because crewes already sign them and they are on GWRs safety case. They can pretty much go straight into servicce at minimal cost, where 175s, depot staff have to learn them as well as training up all instructors, managers and crew. The DfT are looking at the bottom line

Exactly. It's a sad time on the railway at the moment but the DfT aren't going to pay for anything that has an obvious benefit to them. It's hard to see what option for the 175s ticks those boxes. To give an example, I had previously thought maybe GWR could take on the 175s to replace the very expensive HSTs but they've found an even cheaper way of doing that with using spare 800s.

 

[D365]

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

In which case my feeling is that we (the discerning public) need to be so concerned about privately owned assets

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2023 ==

This may not be a fair comparison, but if GoVIA-Thameslink for it's Southern franchise can take corroded class 313 units, which even at the time where pretty much life expired and just have the seats changed to be 2+", rather than the 2+3 they where built with, then why can't one of the train operators take on using the corroded class 175 units.

Bit in bold is your answer.

 

[jackot]

Exactly. It's a sad time on the railway at the moment but the DfT aren't going to pay for anything that has an obvious benefit to them. It's hard to see what option for the 175s ticks those boxes. To give an example, I had previously thought maybe GWR could take on the 175s to replace the very expensive HSTs but they've found an even cheaper way of doing that with using spare 800s.

If GWR can somewhat manage to operate without a replacement for the HSTs, I think they have no choice but to do so. The 175s would have been helpful capacity-wise for them, but I can't see them rushing to buy any sort of Alstom DMU after FGWs joys with the 180s, and especially with money tight at the moment. Northern won't want another micro fleet and I struggle to see Chiltern wanting 175s, even if it would mean huge savings by ditching the 68s and Mk3s - the costs associated with a new fleet seem to big to ignore here, and they are not exactly in perfect condition.

It seems the future is looking rather bleak for the corroding coradias, or the Corrodias as I call them

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Because crewes already sign them and they are on GWRs safety case. They can pretty much go straight into servicce at minimal cost, where 175s, depot staff have to learn them as well as training up all instructors, managers and crew. The DfT are looking at the bottom line

Surely the DfT know Class 150's won't go on forever?

 

[Jez]

I'm a bit surprised some units seem to have already been removed from service at this point as I thought TfW wanted to use them to replace departing 170s and strengthen Marches services until they have enough 197s and Flirts.

I think its more because several sets are out of service needing repairs/parts rather then them wanting to remove them from service. It will be interesting to see how TFW cope once the 170s leave (Spring/Summer?) they will need to speed up the introduction of 197s if they have a chance of avoiding the same situation this Summer as previous summers with overcrowding on the Marches/North Wales coast.

Apparently TFW are hoping to avoid the use of 150/153 substitutions for 175s on the Marches as 'soon as possible'. However until the 197s form the majority of the services I can still see 150s and 153s being used.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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?

I agree that sale abroad is a daft suggestion, but neither track gauge nor "the USA not having any short enough routes" (plenty of commuter operations that would be suitable, it's not all Amtrak long-distance stuff over there) are deal-breakers.

 

[zwk500]

I agree that sale abroad is a daft suggestion, but neither track gauge nor "the USA not having any short enough routes" (plenty of commuter operations that would be suitable, it's not all Amtrak long-distance stuff over there) are deal-breakers.

Track gauge in india is, because the 175s will be a considerable distance from Indian platforms. Their passenger coaches regularly have 3+3 layouts.

The USA does have commuter stuff, but most of it is either a specific rapid transit operation like BART where a uniform fleet is key or electrified like in the Northeast Corridor. Also US Coaches are much bigger than ours and have ground level boarding, so there'd need to be steps fitted and other modifications carried out that really aren't worth it for what are fairly unremarkable trains.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Because crewes already sign them and they are on GWRs safety case. They can pretty much go straight into servicce at minimal cost, where 175s, depot staff have to learn them as well as training up all instructors, managers and crew. The DfT are looking at the bottom line

Is 'the bottom line' a short-term, day-to-day thing? Because if you're looking further ahead ('whole life costs' isn't quite the phrase I'm looking for, but hopefully you get the idea) then (possible corrison on the 175s aside) the 150s are much-closer to life expiry than the 175s so sticking with 150s would incur the cost of building new units sooner than if they went with 175s. The 175s may also bring a revenue boost that wouldn't come with 150s.

That said, my point was more 'surely, if GWR can make use of 150s then surely there must be a UK TOC (not necessarily GWR, although the Cardiff-Portsmouth would benefit from 175s) who could make use of the 175s'.

the DfT won't pay to increase capacity, and in their eyes there isn't any life expired stock the 175s can replace.

Does that mean there isn't any stock the DfT considers to be life-expired, or that the DfT doesn't consider the 175s suitable to replace the stuff that is life-expired? If the latter, then perhaps the DfT need to be made to look at cascades.

For example, Manchester-Liverpool via Warrington Central. 14 intermediate stops in about 70 minutes (5 minutes per stop). Others have said in this topic that the 175s would be unsuitable to replace sprinters on this route because of the dwell times with so many intermediate stops - what you want there is something like 331s (but with better seats) but it isn't electrified so needs 195s in the interim until somebody can get the wires up. Buying new DMUs is a bad idea so the answer is to use 175s on longer, faster, routes (where 195s are, but shouldn't be) to cascade 195s to the Northern's services through Warrington Central.

fairly unremarkable trains

From an international perspective yes, the 175s are fairly unremarkable trains. However, they are remarkable within the UK - being the UK's only post-privatisation 100mph regional express DMU* and quite possibly the train with the greatest legroom in standard class in the UK (or they might be tied with the class 180s for that title).

* Even if I expand that to other types of train I think the only other 100mph post-privatisation 100mph regional express design is the class 444, unless you count the 125mph mark 5s because they are powered by a 100mph class 68.

 

[Brubulus]

Track gauge in india is, because the 175s will be a considerable distance from Indian platforms. Their passenger coaches regularly have 3+3 layouts.

The USA does have commuter stuff, but most of it is either a specific rapid transit operation like BART where a uniform fleet is key or electrified like in the Northeast Corridor. Also US Coaches are much bigger than ours and have ground level boarding, so there'd need to be steps fitted and other modifications carried out that really aren't worth it for what are fairly unremarkable trains.

The US has a significant number of non-electrified commuter rail routes running relatively old loco-hauled stock however the real problem is 175s wouldn't meet US crashworthiness regulations as I believe they are far stricter than UK/EU ones.

 

[zwk500]

From an international perspective yes, the 175s are fairly unremarkable trains. However, they are remarkable within the UK - being the UK's only post-privatisation 100mph regional express DMU* and quite possibly the train with the greatest legroom in standard class in the UK (or they might be tied with the class 180s for that title).

* Even if I expand that to other types of train I think the only other 100mph post-privatisation 100mph regional express design is the class 444, unless you count the 125mph mark 5s because they are powered by a 100mph class 68.

'post-privatisation 100mph regional express DMU' is a very specific niche. But why don't the Class 170s and Class 185s count as 100mph Regional Express DMUs?

 

[Rhydgaled]

'post-privatisation 100mph regional express DMU' is a very specific niche. But why don't the Class 170s and Class 185s count as 100mph Regional Express DMUs?

Vestibules (or the lack of proper ones) and an excessive focus on dwell times and space for standees in the design of the unit rather than the comfort of long-distance passengers.

 

[Class172]

Vestibules (or the lack of proper ones) and an excessive focus on dwell times and space for standees in the design of the unit rather than the comfort of long-distance passengers.

If you were talking about 172s not being regional units for the reasons you’ve listed I’d accept your point. Both 168/170/171s and 185s have proper bays with tables and luggage racks; these are not features I associate with a surburban-spec train, so in my eyes, they are regional express units.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you were talking about 172s not being regional units for the reasons you’ve listed I’d accept your point. Both 168/170/171s and 185s have proper bays with tables and luggage racks; these are not features I associate with a surburban-spec train, so in my eyes, they are regional express units.

None of those units have proper vestibules* and they all have less space for features such as table bays than the class 175s due to the bodyshells (being similar to the 172s) being designed to increase standing room and cut dwell times. From a layman's point of view, the class 172/0s, 172/1s and 170s have essentially identical bodyshells - which is a suburban-spec bodyshell. If you use the same, suburban-spec, bodyshell then (no matter what you do to other elements of the spec) you are not going to create something as well-suited to regional express services as you could do if you actually had a bodyshell designed for the purpose (although I suppose you could get proper vestibules** in a suburban bodyshell, but you would still lose space to standing room (and probably create issues with window alignment) because of the width of the doors).

* certainly not for standard class
** by this I mean having internal doors to keep draughts out of the passenger saloon when the exterior doors are open, and having the toilet doors open into said vestibule rather than directly into the passenger saloon.

 

[IanXC]

If they don'y go to Chiltern to replace the LHCR trains or GWR to replace the turbos on routes like Cardiff - Portsmouth, then maybe they could go to Northern to be replacing class 150 units doing routes like Cleethorpes - Sheffield?

Erm...

Just checking the current year... 2023 right?

If you're really expecting other than marginally available rolling stock on routes like the Brigg line then I give up.

 

[43096]

None of those units have proper vestibules* and they all have less space for features such as table bays than the class 175s due to the bodyshells (being similar to the 172s) being designed to increase standing room and cut dwell times. From a layman's point of view, the class 172/0s, 172/1s and 170s have essentially identical bodyshells - which is a suburban-spec bodyshell. If you use the same, suburban-spec, bodyshell then (no matter what you do to other elements of the spec) you are not going to create something as well-suited to regional express services as you could do if you actually had a bodyshell designed for the purpose (although I suppose you could get proper vestibules** in a suburban bodyshell, but you would still lose space to standing room (and probably create issues with window alignment) because of the width of the doors).

* certainly not for standard class
** by this I mean having internal doors to keep draughts out of the passenger saloon when the exterior doors are open, and having the toilet doors open into said vestibule rather than directly into the passenger saloon.

If you are seriously suggesting that 185s are not regional express units, then I don't know what they are. The internal layout, finish, seats etc are all firmly in that category. They are a seriously nice bit of kit; better than many supposedly IC trains.

 

[jackot]

None of those units have proper vestibules* and they all have less space for features such as table bays than the class 175s due to the bodyshells (being similar to the 172s) being designed to increase standing room and cut dwell times.

If you are seriously suggesting that 185s are not regional express units, then I don't know what they are. The internal layout, finish, seats etc are all firmly in that category. They are a seriously nice bit of kit; better than many supposedly IC trains.

Yes, just because a train has doors at thirds and no vestibules it shouldn't disqualify it from being a 'regional express unit'. I get that doors at ends are nice to have, but I wouldn't rule out trains that don't have them. I wouldn't describe the 185s as having an excessive focus for standees either - maybe more than a voyager or an IET but that is understandable. I would definitely vouch that the 185s are practically the definition of what a regional express train should be in most circumstances.

I would say Class 170s should definitely be under that umbrella as well in most cases, especially when looking at the ones ordered for Scotrail, Midland Mainline and SWT.

 

[Rich McLean]

Surely the DfT know Class 150's won't go on forever?

They do. Longer term plan is a common platform fleet replacement at GWR for all 15x and 16x.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From an international perspective yes, the 175s are fairly unremarkable trains. However, they are remarkable within the UK - being the UK's only post-privatisation 100mph regional express DMU* and quite possibly the train with the greatest legroom in standard class in the UK (or they might be tied with the class 180s for that title).

* Even if I expand that to other types of train I think the only other 100mph post-privatisation 100mph regional express design is the class 444, unless you count the 125mph mark 5s because they are powered by a 100mph class 68.

Why aren't you including 170s and 185s in that category?

I smell "door layout prejudice".

(Edit- just spotted the typo)

 

[Philip]

The leg room and seat-window alignment on 185s is also very good, up there with the 175s.

 

[krus_aragon]

Failing that, TFW may change their mind and have the class 175 units replace their class 158 units and those possibly go on to part replace the class 150, 153, 158 units alongside the class 197.

A key obstacle to that idea is that most 158s are employed over the ERTMS-signalled Cambrian. 175s would need to be retrofitted with suitable equipment, which isn't going to come cheap. Virtually all services there are portion-worked too, which leaves the 175 at another disadvantage due to the lack of gangways.

If the 175s are to be kept on, it won't be for current 158 duties.

 

[D365]

A key obstacle to that idea is that most 158s are employed over the ERTMS-signalled Cambrian. 175s would need to be retrofitted with suitable equipment, which isn't going to come cheap. Virtually all services there are portion-worked too, which leaves the 175 at another disadvantage due to the lack of gangways.

If the 175s are to be kept on, it won't be for current 158 duties.

Indeed - for Cambrian duties, a 197 subfleet will be fitted with ETCS.

 

[6Gman]

I view the 175s as the most comfortable DMUs on the system BUT given:

they're a small specialist fleet;
they require dedicated maintenance;
they are non-gangwayed;
the reported corrosion issues;
the current financial issues facing the railways (and the country more widely);

I fear their next destination will indeed be the scrap merchants.

Which is sad.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you are seriously suggesting that 185s are not regional express units, then I don't know what they are. The internal layout, finish, seats etc are all firmly in that category. They are a seriously nice bit of kit; better than many supposedly IC trains.

The 185s have an outer-suburban bodyshell and therefore are outer-suburban units, just as 350s are. Yes, the 185s have better seats than many supposedly IC units (the Nova fleets being the most obvious example) but seats can be changed, the bodyshell cannot.

I would say Class 170s should definitely be under that umbrella as well in most cases.

While the 185s are clearly outer-suburban units to me, I don't really know what the 170s are - they (along with 180s, 397s, most 22x, most 80x, all 195s and all 197s) just appear to be sub-optimal for whatever use you could try putting them to. In the case of the 125mph units, it's because only busy routes are going to be upgraded/maintained for 125mph running and on a busy route you need more than 5 coaches (the 7-car and 9-car 22x/80x are potentially useful IC units, just give the 80x some decent seats and the 22x a decent interior layout) and the crumple zones and lack of gangways make multiple working sub-optimal for 125mph stock. In the case of the 19x, it's because virtually all (I didn't list the 196s because there are so few of them) units that aren't OHLE-compatible need to be withdrawn by 2050 (within the lifespan of the 19x). As for the 170s, assuming what I've read in places like this forum is correct, 170s have fairly sluggish acceleration and don't like frequent stops. That makes them sub-optimal for suburban work, but they have suburban bodyshells which make them sub-optimal for anything else.

Yes, just because a train has doors at thirds and no vestibules it shouldn't disqualify it from being a 'regional express unit'. I get that doors at ends are nice to have, but I wouldn't rule out trains that don't have them. I wouldn't describe the 185s as having an excessive focus for standees either - maybe more than a voyager or an IET but that is understandable. I would definitely vouch that the 185s are practically the definition of what a regional express train should be in most circumstances.

I completely disagree regarding the increased focus on standees being understandable - a regional express route such as Cardiff-Nottingham (3hrs 18min) can be just as long, if not longer, than an IC one (eg. PAD-Swansea at 2hrs 45mins) and a very long way indeed beyond what would be an acceptable length of time to stand. Therefore, increased standing room should, on a regional express service, be a non-issue. I assume the doors on the 185s are 1300mm wide, the same as 385s and 197s and therefore (I assume) this is some sort of standard - that is also wider than the doors on 175s and therefore creates additional standing room leaving less room for table bays, legroom, toilets etc. on a 185 compared to a 175.

At least you seem to appreciate the benefit of end doors and proper vestibules, so perhaps I can steer back towards the topic of 175s by emphasising/repeating one of the point I was trying to make - that the class 175s are remarkable units since they are the only UK post-privatisation 100mph DMUs with proper vestibules and single-width doors.

I view the 175s as the most comfortable DMUs on the system BUT given:

they're a small specialist fleet;
they require dedicated maintenance;
they are non-gangwayed;
the reported corrosion issues;
the current financial issues facing the railways (and the country more widely);

I fear their next destination will indeed be the scrap merchants.

Which is sad.

I think there are more-comfortable seats out there than the ones on the 175s (certainly just prior to them going for the TfW refresh when some of the seats had worn out leaving a really uncomfortable spot - unfortuntely I'm not sure they fixed this issue at the refresh). Other than the seats though (which, as I said above, could be changed and in good condition were alot better than the Fainsa stuff) I agree with you completely 6Gman - you have summarised the suituation well.

 

[Wolfie]

The 185s have an outer-suburban bodyshell and therefore are outer-suburban units, just as 350s are. Yes, the 185s have better seats than many supposedly IC units (the Nova fleets being the most obvious example) but seats can be changed, the bodyshell cannot.


While the 185s are clearly outer-suburban units to me, I don't really know what the 170s are - they (along with 180s, 397s, most 22x, most 80x, all 195s and all 197s) just appear to be sub-optimal for whatever use you could try putting them to. In the case of the 125mph units, it's because only busy routes are going to be upgraded/maintained for 125mph running and on a busy route you need more than 5 coaches (the 7-car and 9-car 22x/80x are potentially useful IC units, just give the 80x some decent seats and the 22x a decent interior layout) and the crumple zones and lack of gangways make multiple working sub-optimal for 125mph stock. In the case of the 19x, it's because virtually all (I didn't list the 196s because there are so few of them) units that aren't OHLE-compatible need to be withdrawn by 2050 (within the lifespan of the 19x). As for the 170s, assuming what I've read in places like this forum is correct, 170s have fairly sluggish acceleration and don't like frequent stops. That makes them sub-optimal for suburban work, but they have suburban bodyshells which make them sub-optimal for anything else.


I completely disagree regarding the increased focus on standees being understandable - a regional express route such as Cardiff-Nottingham (3hrs 18min) can be just as long, if not longer, than an IC one (eg. PAD-Swansea at 2hrs 45mins) and a very long way indeed beyond what would be an acceptable length of time to stand. Therefore, increased standing room should, on a regional express service, be a non-issue. I assume the doors on the 185s are 1300mm wide, the same as 385s and 197s and therefore (I assume) this is some sort of standard - that is also wider than the doors on 175s and therefore creates additional standing room leaving less room for table bays, legroom, toilets etc. on a 185 compared to a 175.

At least you seem to appreciate the benefit of end doors and proper vestibules, so perhaps I can steer back towards the topic of 175s by emphasising/repeating one of the point I was trying to make - that the class 175s are remarkable units since they are the only UK post-privatisation 100mph DMUs with proper vestibules and single-width doors.


I think there are more-comfortable seats out there than the ones on the 175s (certainly just prior to them going for the TfW refresh when some of the seats had worn out leaving a really uncomfortable spot - unfortuntely I'm not sure they fixed this issue at the refresh). Other than the seats though (which, as I said above, could be changed and in good condition were alot better than the Fainsa stuff) I agree with you completely 6Gman - you have summarised the suituation well.

Your repeated obsession with train door layout defining role and usage gets shot down every time that you repeat it. You are in a very small minority (possibly of one) on here and will not, despite what you may feel, convince anyone to change their views by repeating the same arguments ad nauseum.

 

[zwk500]

The 185s have an outer-suburban bodyshell and therefore are outer-suburban units, just as 350s are. Yes, the 185s have better seats than many supposedly IC units (the Nova fleets being the most obvious example) but seats can be changed, the bodyshell cannot.

Pacers had doors at ends. By your criteria that makes them Regional Express units.

 

[Neptune]

Pacers had doors at ends. By your criteria that makes them Regional Express units.

Quite. Also going by this door obsession and looking at mk1/early mk2 coaches which had 3 doors means they should only be seen on the Elizabeth Line!

Also the excruciating seat obsession this particular poster has alongside many others on here have is all personal opinion and should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Too many believe that theirs is the only opinion that is correct and that counts and everyone else is wrong. I personally like the seat comfort in the 80x and therefore the 197. Does it make me right or wrong? No. *But too many posters on here think that a seat they don’t like is bad for everybody because they say so.

*I’ve always found it odd that seat obsessives are the only people who glean an opinion from ‘relatives’ (presumably under a high power lamp) or even overhearing a ‘random stranger’ on a train therefore backing them up regarding seat comfort/door position/moquette colour etc… I have visions of one person mentioning it and by the time the train has made it 10 minutes down the line the entire train is discussing the ‘issue’ said poster has. The reality is that 99.9% of passengers don’t give a toss about these ‘issues’.